Tricky attempt at sidestepping but that doesn't mean what I posted isn't true Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post No, it's not. Consent may be withdrawn at anytime anyway .... Having sex does not require a woman to have a child."""""" - - - Updated - - - Have you talked to your Congressman yet? Why not? Tell him you don't want men to have responsibility for their children.......I'm sure that'll fly with taxpayers...
*Sigh!* It's you again.... No, Fox, I can't "prove" who gets abortions and who doesn't. The point I've been driving at every time this topic comes up is that the hyperliberal wing of the Democrat Party militantly attacks all Conservatives about the abortion issue every chance they get, obviously, to herd all women into thinking that someone is trying to make them follow a mandate that their post-puberty lives should consist of nothing but "church, children, and kitchen". I see so many of my fellow Conservatives getting so spun-up over this damned abortion thing when we should confront the fact the Roe v Wade already has FORTY-THREE years behind it as the Law of the Land. The best thing to do, by far, is let everybody who wants an abortion to have one, including the cheerleaders at the "Hate Conservatives" pep-rally that's been stinking up our national elections for decades! I go one step further by saying that the government should be willing to pay for abortions for the welfare crowd, because either we "abort 'em, or, support 'em"! So, if "Mama" doesn't want to be a "Mama" after all, then it's off to the clinic, twenty minutes in the stirrups, and back out to the wonderful world, and all at taxpayer expense. For every reason that makes sense to me, that's the only approach we should be following as a secular nation. Or do you disagree...? And if you do disagree... why? Do you on the Left fear losing one of your most effective and powerful weapons to destroy us on the Right with...?!
Yes, I should have referred to the Law of the Land instead when making that point. Explain how what I posted fits these imaginary "many circles" definition of hypocrisy when I began my post with this statement; If you can't then I will just chalk that comment up as an illogical "appeal to authority fallacy". Have a nice day!
Over the years I have found myself agreeing with some conservative goals and some liberal goals. I like the stated conservative goal of smaller government, but it has always puzzled me that conservatives would want to bloat government by making abortion, marijuana, and (at one time) alcohol illegal. My personal opinion is that most conservative politicians use these issues to gain support from the religious right.
You indicated that only liberal Democrats get abortions, good of you to admit you have no proof. So why do you keep indicating you think it's true. I usually tell Anti-Choicers that there are no "pro-abortion" advocates. I see I was wrong, you advocate for abortion. Pro-Choicers do not. Pro-Choice is ONLY about preserving the right of women to decide to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy despite repeated attempts by Republicans to etch away at that right. Pro-Choicers don't imagine the attacks, they happen. Just recently Texas got it's butt handed to it by the SCOTUS when it tried to restrict women's right to abortion Of course you're wrong again when you say , """and all at taxpayer expense.""" You have no proof of that either but, like a good Repub politician would do , you don't let that stop you from attacking. Yes, the more Republicans attack women's rights the more women see them for what they are....
I can't answer for other Conservatives (which designation may or may not include "Republicans"). But I won't try to dodge your insinuation, and I would ask you a fair and honest question -- who's always raising hell about abortion rights, and ripping Conservatives' heads off about the issue? Is it Conservative women? Not really... and we both know that. No, it's the Socialist Left female groups that are at the forefront of those confrontations. And that's just FINE with me! I know my viewpoint is unusual for a Conservative but I figured it out a long time ago. We're being beaten in elections because of this weird "tilting-at-windmills" fascination that many Conservatives have about Roe v Wade, even though it has been settled law for over 43 years! As far as I can tell, you and I have no quarrels about this. I know you want to snipe at me a little bit, but when it comes right down to it, you and I seem to want the same thing when it comes to abortion: everybody, Conservative and Liberal needs to just shut the hell up about abortion -- period! Let women abort their _______________ (fill in the blank) whenever they feel like it, for whatever reason they like! Moreover, for all I care, these women can have the dead carcass, or blob of cells, or whatever the hell it actually is and they can sell it to the highest bidder and make money off the deal. After all, it belongs to them, and it came out of their bodies.... As the children say, "Whatever!" I don't care! We Conservatives need to quit shooting ourselves in both feet over abortion in every election. I know you on the Left would love for us to continue to wreck ourselves over abortion, but some of us on the Right have awoken and we're going to deprive you of this low-hanging election "fruit".
You: """who's always raising hell about abortion rights, and ripping Conservatives' heads off about the issue? Is it Conservative women? Not really... and we both know that. No, it's the Socialist Left female groups that are at the forefront of those confrontations. " With your conservative /repub/whatever viewpoint you keep insisting things that just aren't true, inflaming the issue. JUST LIKE THE REPUB/CONSERVATIVES WHO CAUSE the controversy BY REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTING to take away women's rights. YES, liberals fight back. of course they do ! BUT they do NOT start the fight, those that want to take away women's rights are the ones who start the fight. Thank goodness there are those who fight the idiocy!! HOW can you claim fighting for preserving rights is a bad thing? HOW can you claim crap like ""Socialist Left female groups that are at the forefront of those confrontations. """ WHAT can't you get about there would be NO "confrontations" if Conservative/repub/whatevers just minded their own damn business and quit trying to make bigger government???? YOU inflame the debate by wrongly insisting taxpayers pay for abortions. YOU inflame the debate and keep it going by ranting hysterically about "these women can have the dead carcass, or blob of cells, or whatever the hell it actually is and they can sell it to the highest bidder and make money off the deal"" (which does not happen.) Why don't you follow your own advice!? Stop talking about it.... Pro-Choice is ONLY about preserving the right of women to decide to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy despite repeated attempts by Republicans to etch away at that right. Pro-Choicers don't imagine the attacks, they happen. Just recently Texas got it's butt handed to it by the SCOTUS when it tried to restrict women's right to abortion
Yes exactly. So if two persons don't agree on those values, it's pointless to debate. They can choose to fight, in which case on will prevails and the other submits, or they can compromise. Well sure. Absolutes don't exist in any case. Believe me, no one has ever "justified" the wrong-doing of murder. It's just a subjective preference, albeit a near universal subjective preference. Laws in a society reflect the trending values. It's near universal that people will reject any notion of in-group killing, so we have a law against murder. Hence why I bring up a change in culture, one that would take abortion seriously and reject it in favor of life. Culture evolves for more reasons than just persuasion in debate, in fact it rarely evolves like that. Historical, economic, and sociological pressures are much more important to that development. Laws are also the imposition of power over those without it. It's true for the law against murder because killers are, overall, "powerless" in society in that their view is extreme minority. But it's also true for less obvious laws, like regulations and taxes, which do not by any stretch of the imagination have the same universal consensus. Hence why it's important to distinguish "natural law" and "legislation" (fiat). I don't value "life" in a biological sense, that would be pretty empty. I value it more for its curious experiential factors, as well as its dimensions that cross generations (i.e. the proliferation of a certain genetic type, hence the value on family, and tribe, and nation). The world is a chaos of powers in constant struggle. It's more like Nietzsche saw Socrates as the man who convinced the strong that they actually had to listen to the arguments of the weak. If you're strong, you can impose your will, no matter what meta-physical, logical, reasonable argument someone makes. To take these arguments seriously is to submit to deceitful ways of influence, and to signal a decline in civilization. I think Nietzsche would've found beauty in the pagan ways, but he wasn't a cheerleader for Zeus or anything. Nietzsche isn't against logic, as long as it remains instrumental, and not meta-physical. Think "logic", rather than capital L "Logic". The word, after all, comes from the Greek "logos", which refers to the meta-physical order of the cosmos.
If you think that, then your reading comprehension is very poor. You said that I claimed, "a rapist will produce a rapist". I did not. What I did say was, "Rapists aren't good for trust within society. I don't care to see them proliferate." If you try really hard to think about it, you'll see that they are not the same. If you can't figure out, I don't have the time to help you, it's just not worth it. Why don't you go back and read what I said? That's a good place to start. Have you even done that yet? Your responses don't give me the faintest idea that you have. Again, just making up stuff to debate with a fictional person. Giving birth is indeed a burden. But there's a burden on the man too, the burden to provide those things necessary to raise the child, both material and non-material. In this context, that's the man's duty, and it lasts a lot longer than the few hours that it takes to give birth. It should last at least 15 years or so until the child is a man/woman with enough autonomy. That's absurd. Completely ignoring the psychological effects. It's worse in your case because you're being illiterate. I never said the word "rape gene" ever. Civilization is in decline, but it has nothing to do with the population. It's funny when you say things like that, when you reveal that you see human society like some sort of ant colony or something. Of course you will think my position is out of some notion of "hatred", which is absurd. Your denial of nature is pretty comical. Try going into the Amazon jungle, and telling me otherwise. - - - Updated - - - There's a difference between "wrong" in an instrumental sense and "wrong" in a moral, meta-physical sense. Your statement is true for the former, but the complete opposite is the case for the latter.
As if rights exist at all. And as if its being a "problem" is, surprise surprise, not just your personal opinion. As far as you're concerned, that's true. But it won't happen any time soon. Civilization is dependent on the domestication of men and women, to suppress parasitic behaviors and promote productive ones. This extends into the customs of reproduction.
I have to admit your squirming and wriggling is some of the best I've seen in here You almost hid the FACT that you can't tell me what the difference is between an abortion done due to rape and one done due to consensual sex....almost.. It has nothing to do with rapists proliferating........but it does have to do with the fact that those against abortion think the woman should be punished for having consensual sex by being forced to give birth. And the following is just too bizarre....."""Giving birth is indeed a burden. But there's a burden on the man too, the burden to provide those things necessary to raise the child, both material and non-material. In this context, that's the man's duty, and it lasts a lot longer than the few hours that it takes to give birth."""" Having a child is just a "few hours" ?! Oh my! somebody needs a biology book !!!!! Did you know human gestation is 9 months....and you think that's a few hours!!!!! It's 9 months of pain and temporary and permanent physical harm, time off work, financial loss, possible job loss, career and educational set backs, followed by labor which can last days...........AND 18 years of supporting the kid....but , oh, the poor little man, what horrors and pain he suffers having to earn a living!!! Oh, poor baby!! How pathetic...
They should have responsibility when they get equal rights. Now the men pay and the women get the kids in most cases. The men also have no choice in whether or not THEIR child will be aborted.
But I have to admit.......... ... that I am not entirely altruistic in my tendency to follow you around Sir....... I plead guilty........ I believe that your replies...... to what I write......... causes what I write to increase and increase and increase in value........ On that note I need to quote this over to another discussion..... related to Abortion....... http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/465407-m-p-sean-fraser-proposed-anti-feticide-bill-5.html Thread: M. P. Sean Fraser, proposed anti-feticide bill.
Since low self esteem has nothing whatsoever to do with meta-physics your tacit admission to being wrong about women is duly noted.
Rights exist when We the People uphold them for each other. Social studies 101. Yet another inane deflection. Denial of rights fits the definition of UNCIVILIZED behavior.
Why are you so angry and shrill? I'm on YOUR side in this abortion debacle. I want your faction, along with any others, to have non-stop abortions every moment of the day and night! And even though I'm a fiscal rock-solid Conservative who is completely allergic to unearned, handout welfare for anyone, I heartily endorse the idea that the government should pay for abortions for any reason a woman wants one -- period! If nothing else, consider this: there are approximately three times more live human beings on this planet now than in 1968, the year that most economists believe that most people achieved the greatest amount of actual wealth as related to purchasing power. Overpopulation creates enormous demands on everything, including a limited, finite planet, and it creates enormous friction and conflict between "have's" and "have-not's". Here in the U. S., we've been forced to take an "abort 'em or support 'em" approach to the situation, and on top of that, any objection to abortion, per se, has only wrecked the political aspirations of all of us Conservatives. The only logical approach is to promote abortion to all who want it. Make it fast, easy, and free! There, now... what else could you possibly want besides that for a revised Right-wing attitude toward abortion? You get your cake, eat it, and the truck is pulling up in front to deliver more!
See, it's you who just can't stop talking about it....and repeating the same old crap....you sound so angry and shrill because women don't bow to your will and get more abortions. You just cannot understand what Pro-CHOICE is.....and you obviouosly never will. AGAIN, why don't you follow your own advice and quit talking about it .......
How can anyone be so in favor of abortion when we cant even sustain our population without immigration ?
How can anyone be so against Choice that they would deprive American citizens of their rights? Women are under NO obligation to fill up a nation, what an ridiculous idea...
The first right you have is the right to life. Are you saying if your poor life is not worth living ?
