Donald Trump

1…17911792179417961797…2954

Comments

  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,196
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
    I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.
    How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,911
    edited May 2019
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
    I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.
    How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

    You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.
    I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,656
    edited May 2019
    mcgruff10 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 
    Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.
    Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy. 

    But in what country is it not? Not like a woman can say "I've changed my mind!" 8 months and 3 weeks in.

    Or are you saying even abortions where the womans life is at risk should be illegal?
    I think an abortion should be illegal when the baby becomes viable. Even an abortion at 16 weeks I scratch my head a little. 
    Ah okey. I've never been with a woman so I don't really know about these kinds of birds and bees or how a baby develops. But, in Sweden it is week 18 (no questions asked). Week 18-22 you need to have a permission from "The National Board of Health and Welfare" and there is possibilty for "special exceptions" (I'm guessing for the womans health etc) to get the right to it after week 22. 

    What's the average week for the right to abortion in the States? Less than 18 weeks I guess?
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,911
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 
    Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.
    Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy. 

    But in what country is it not? Not like a woman can say "I've changed my mind!" 8 months and 3 weeks in.

    Or are you saying even abortions where the womans life is at risk should be illegal?
    I think an abortion should be illegal when the baby becomes viable. Even an abortion at 16 weeks I scratch my head a little. 
    Ah okey. I've never been with a woman so I don't really know about these kinds of birds and bees or how a baby develops. But, in Sweden it is week 18 (no questions asked). Week 18-22 you need to have a permission from "The National Board of Health and Welfare" and there is possibilty for "special exceptions" (I'm guessing for the womans health etc) to get the right to it after week 22. 

    What's the average week for the right to abortion in the States? Less than 18 weeks I guess?
    It varies wildly from state to state.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,196
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
    I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.
    How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

    You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.
    I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 
    What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,656
    People should focus more time on lowering the amounts of abortions, than talking about the right to abortion. Me thinks. 
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?

    Both sides should meet in the middle? Why?

    So you're saying that if a law was passed that required you to provide use of your organs to someone else for a several month period, after which you would get them back, often with some damage, certainly not in mint condition, and the possibility that it would mean serious health consequences or death for you, you'd be okay with "meeting in the middle" to discuss a few little tweaks?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,196
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    People should focus more time on lowering the amounts of abortions, than talking about the right to abortion. Me thinks. 
    Definitely agree.  (are we actually agreeing?!)
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,981
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?

    Both sides should meet in the middle? Why?

    So you're saying that if a law was passed that required you to provide use of your organs to someone else for a several month period, after which you would get them back, often with some damage, certainly not in mint condition, and the possibility that it would mean serious health consequences or death for you, you'd be okay with "meeting in the middle" to discuss a few little tweaks?
    I sense a business opportunity...
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,196
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?

    Both sides should meet in the middle? Why?

    So you're saying that if a law was passed that required you to provide use of your organs to someone else for a several month period, after which you would get them back, often with some damage, certainly not in mint condition, and the possibility that it would mean serious health consequences or death for you, you'd be okay with "meeting in the middle" to discuss a few little tweaks?
    Because extremes are bad.  There shouldn't be abortions for all situations and on the flip side abortions shouldn't be totally illegal like in Alabama (not totally illegal but you know what I mean).  And like I said I have no clue what that middle is.  

    And who here is disagreeing with having an abortion if the woman's life is in danger (which is what you are describing I believe)?
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,981
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?

    Both sides should meet in the middle? Why?

    So you're saying that if a law was passed that required you to provide use of your organs to someone else for a several month period, after which you would get them back, often with some damage, certainly not in mint condition, and the possibility that it would mean serious health consequences or death for you, you'd be okay with "meeting in the middle" to discuss a few little tweaks?
    Because extremes are bad.  There shouldn't be abortions for all situations and on the flip side abortions shouldn't be totally illegal like in Alabama (not totally illegal but you know what I mean).  And like I said I have no clue what that middle is.  

    And who here is disagreeing with having an abortion if the woman's life is in danger (which is what you are describing I believe)?
    The point made earlier is relevant though.  Discussions around eugenics, or 'abortion during birth' or other stupid shit like that is not real.  It is a red herring.  The Alabama bill (hearbeat bill) is crazy.  Many don't know they are pregnant by time that occurs.  
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,911
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
    I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.
    How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

    You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.
    I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 
    What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 
    Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,196
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?

    Both sides should meet in the middle? Why?

    So you're saying that if a law was passed that required you to provide use of your organs to someone else for a several month period, after which you would get them back, often with some damage, certainly not in mint condition, and the possibility that it would mean serious health consequences or death for you, you'd be okay with "meeting in the middle" to discuss a few little tweaks?
    Because extremes are bad.  There shouldn't be abortions for all situations and on the flip side abortions shouldn't be totally illegal like in Alabama (not totally illegal but you know what I mean).  And like I said I have no clue what that middle is.  

    And who here is disagreeing with having an abortion if the woman's life is in danger (which is what you are describing I believe)?
    The point made earlier is relevant though.  Discussions around eugenics, or 'abortion during birth' or other stupid shit like that is not real.  It is a red herring.  The Alabama bill (hearbeat bill) is crazy.  Many don't know they are pregnant by time that occurs.  
    Yeah the heartbeat bill is definitely too soon.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,656
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
    I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.
    How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

    You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.
    I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 
    What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 
    Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.
    So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,911
    edited May 2019
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
    I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.
    How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

    You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.
    I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 
    What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 
    Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.
    So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a
    I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

    Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter).
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,981
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
    I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.
    How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

    You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.
    I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 
    What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 
    Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.
    So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a
    I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

    Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter). NEVER EVER. I think it's disgusting that anyone could think differently.
    But what the administration is trying to tell people is that woman give birth to viable fetuses (children) and then the doctor has them killed.  No joke.  I agree that if at 34 weeks a woman can't handle being pregnant or whatever, then she should be able to have a C section or induce birth.  That's perfectly legitimate.  There is no "infanticide" like the right wing pretends.  
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,656
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
    I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.
    How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

    You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.
    I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 
    What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 
    Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.
    So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a
    I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

    Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter).
    But What does that mean in practice?
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,911
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
    I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.
    How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

    You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.
    I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 
    What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 
    Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.
    So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a
    I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

    Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter).
    But What does that mean in practice?
    That women can get abortions whenever they want to of course. Everyone needs to have complete control over what is happening inside of their own internal organs, always. But of course NO woman is asking for an abortion when they are full term, that is just not a thing that happens.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,981
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Court decided not to take up the Indiana abortion law.  This is a win for pro-choice advocates.  We'll see what happens with Alabama.  

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445719-supreme-court-allows-indiana-law-on-fetal-remains-to-go-into-effect
    "But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being." 

    People abort because of the sex of the baby?  That's some messed up shit right there.
    Except that they don't.  It's one of the current 'arguments' against abortion, that people are practicing eugenics.  So Indiana passed a dumb ass law, because they are dumb ass Indiana.  The reality is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are about economic considerations.  
    Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar. 
    Except an abortion is a private decision made by a woman regarding her own body.  When a gun owner goes bad, it affects society at large.  So I would not agree with the characterization.  
    No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch. 
    Why in the fuck should women give an inch of control over their own internal organs to the state????

    There is basically nothing at all in common between the abortion debate and the gun control debate.
    Well there you go! You just proved my point. 

    You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
    I didn’t say that.  I said the arguments are similar because there is no common ground.  Both sides refuse to give up an inch. 
    But just in saying that, you're suggesting someone SHOULD give an inch when it comes to the abortion issue. That is what I'm disagreeing with. That the gun debate has even been brought into it at all is ludicrous. It's a conservative dog whistle tactic.
    Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure. 
    Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
    I already said there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ABORTION DURING BIRTH. That is just 100% bullshit coming from the anti-choice ranks. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I can't believe you've fallen for that.
    How have I fallen for a hypothetical situation that I just made up?  So you are ok with late term abortions? 

    You didn't make that up. That argument is straight out of the Trump and anti-choicers' playbook, and you are perpetuating it.
    I am okay with a woman having control over her own body. How I or anyone else personally feels about late term abortion is completely irrelevant. 
    What are you talking about?  We were talking about the Alabama law today during lunch and that scenario came up.  So you can ask me about my opinion but you can’t express yours?  That s odd. 
    Huh? I am saying that that scenario came up because it is a common talking point among anti-choicers, and has been for 3 years now. The first time I remember that bullshit scenario raised was during a Trump/Clinton debate. I'm not saying I don't think it did come up during some conversation you were having.
    So when do you think a woman should lose the complete free will decide on a
    I will just guess the ending of that sentence, lol.

    Like I said, at NO point should a woman lose complete free will over her own physical body (or anyone else for that matter).
    But What does that mean in practice?
    That women can get abortions whenever they want to of course. Everyone needs to have complete control over what is happening inside of their own internal organs, always. But of course NO woman is asking for an abortion when they are full term, that is just not a thing that happens.
    Right... those are called births.  And doctors are not killing babies when they are born alive.  It's ludicrous.  
  • Bentleyspop
    Bentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 11,641
    Remember when this thread was about the LIAR-IN-CHIEF ?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories