Donald Trump
Comments
-
Generally...maybe... I think a lot of pro choice people (like me) agree with a ban on late term abortions except in cases of a women's health. That's giving an inch. But yes, the passion by the advocacy groups mirror each other.mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.0 -
I had a little chit chat with a neighbor over the holiday weekend. I just met this guy.
When I asked about his thoughts on Supreme Leader, he said "we'll...if we impeach him, then we'd be stuck with Pence."
Policy-wise...Mike Pence is already the president. All that coordinated anti-abortion bullshit? Smells mighty Pencey.Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180 -
mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.Post edited by mcgruff10 onI'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opinion/abortion-legislation-rape.html
To think the “state” would make her carry to term and give birth? Madness.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy.PJ_Soul said:
Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Wait, what...the US at war with Jemin? Where is Jemin?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Okey. Why didn't your family take up arms before the US were attacked then? Your wonderful family was complicit until that point I take it?mrussel1 said:
Nope, I had no family involved in Vietnam. If you had family in Sweden during the war and they did not take up arms against the Nazis, then they were complicit.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do you have jars of bones from children being burned alive by napalm in Vietnam in yours?mrussel1 said:
Do you have a few iron crosses in the attic as a thanks for helping transport munitions to the Eastern Front for the Nazis? That was very helpful, it more efficiently cleared the way for the Einsatzgruppen to do its dirty work.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I guess you see some point in some way of branding the band in this nationalistic thing of yours.mrussel1 said:
Haha, blaming the US for starting the worst war in history, one which many of our family members were affected by directly, is a real riot. I can never get enough of you trashing the US while you are on a US website dedicated to a US band. It's all so much fun.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Without the punchline "Now the US started WW2.", how would the point of my comment come across as lovingly?mrussel1 said:
Doh...except England and France were the forces behind the Treaty of Versailles, not the Americans. Wilson wanted the Fourteen Points to be the basis of the treaty. He was against the War Guilt clause specifically. Try again.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Scholars also say, the winning team after WW1 started WW2 by putting Germany in a position where Hitler-labeled nationalism had soil to grow. That was in the 10s.mcgruff10 said:
Um, they invaded China in the 1930's and then attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. A lot of scholars argue that the war started here although the official start of World War 2 was on September 1, 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. At that point Japan had already killed millions.Spiritual_Chaos said:
In what way did the Japanese start WW2?mcgruff10 said:
Are you trying to imply that Japan was innocent in this? They started world war 2, what did you want the us to do?dignin said:
You might think differently if it was Japan who had dropped nuclear bombs on two American cities to end the war.mcgruff10 said:
I don't think dropping two nuclear bombs was an atrocity, to me it was the way to end the war against an enemy that wouldn't give up. I definitely think Japan out atrocitied (word? lol) us during World War 2. Rape of Nanking, treatment of prisoners of war....etcMeltdown99 said:
The original post that started this conversation was referring to atrocities committed by the US towards other countries. In the case of Japan specifically, some might say dropping 2 nuclear bombs on Japan, were atrocities as well. I am not going to debate it either. Because there is nothing to debate...mcgruff10 said:
Dissagree but I am definitely not debating this. I didn’t realize world war 2 was over, thanks for letting me know Capt. however I am still wondering what part of Pearl Harbor is an American atrocity.Meltdown99 said:
If the US President's want to bring up wrongdoing by other countries towards the US, then the line of other countries that have grievances against the US would be very extensive and the atrocities committed by the US towards other countries far outweigh any atrocities committed against the US. Why is that so hard for you to see. By the way, WW2 is over. Japan is a good friend of the west. Trump is a fucking idiot for bringing up that attack...mcgruff10 said:
Not to mention the firebombing of Japanese civilians throughout the war. Maybe check out the doc The Fog Of War.
I know all about the firebombings and how more people were killed in those bombings than in the nuclear bomb droppings. Even with all those people dying in the firebombings Japan still didn’t surrender.
Hitler rushed to get his army ready after he surprisingly heard on the radio about the Pearl Harbour attack? "Hurry up with the jew-hating leaflets" people heard him yell while running into his study to design the swastika.
Hehe.
Check-mate Japan. Now the US started WW2.
"Check-mate Japan. Now France, and England and a bunch of other countries - including the US - lay a foundation through their peace terms for the possibility of the Germany people to accept authoritarianism which you can see as a thread leading up Germany attacking it's neighbors".
No need to kill all the fun.
I stand by my comment. Among a bunch of stiffs.
I see them as Pearl Jam. Not the olympic team of musicians from the USA.
I also do not really care what country the server is where this website is being stored. I also do not have problem with a great band being from the US. Or the five of my five favorite movies. Or a copywriter named Bob I worked with once. But I guess you see it in a different way.
Also, I have not blamed the US for starting WW2. You have a problem understanding text and the different uses of it. Subtext. Sarcasm. Witty-ness. Those kind of things.
Your family members being affected by WW2 concerns me not in the context of my comment. And should not.
all good. Fridens liljor.
And I don't see you take up arms in the Saudis war on Jemen - so you are in fact right now complicit behind your screen?Give Peas A Chance…0 -
Kay. Which means you think that the state should have control over a woman's internal organs. And if the state has that power, it means that women would be slaves to the state.mcgruff10 said:
Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy.PJ_Soul said:
Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
I wouldn’t use those words but yes.PJ_Soul said:
Kay. Which means you think that the state should have control over a woman's internal organs. And if the state has that power, it means that women would be slaves to the state.mcgruff10 said:
Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy.PJ_Soul said:
Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
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.oftenreading said:mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
But in what country is it not? Not like a woman can say "I've changed my mind!" 8 months and 3 weeks in.mcgruff10 said:
Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy.PJ_Soul said:
Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
Or are you saying even abortions where the womans life is at risk should be illegal?"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I'm just gonna say, if I get stuck in an abortion debate... that I am not well versed in the details of it.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Well right. There is no such thing as an abortion of a fetus that is full term. That is called childbirth. But I assume McGruff means earlier than full term (hopefully), since that whole full term abortion lie is 100% Trumpist propaganda. I assume he is talking about something along the line of no abortions after the 1st trimester or something. But still, the state shouldn't have the right to have ANY say in what a woman does about what's inside her own body. EVER.Spiritual_Chaos said:
But in what country is it not? Not like a woman can say "I've changed my mind!" 8 months and 3 weeks in.mcgruff10 said:
Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy.PJ_Soul said:
Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
Or are you saying even abortions where the womans life is at risk should be illegal?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I think an abortion should be illegal when the baby becomes viable. Even an abortion at 16 weeks I scratch my head a little.Spiritual_Chaos said:
But in what country is it not? Not like a woman can say "I've changed my mind!" 8 months and 3 weeks in.mcgruff10 said:
Oh I am pro choice but I do think abortion should be illegal at some point in the pregnancy.PJ_Soul said:
Are you not going to acknowledge mine?? With the way you're not qualifying your statements, you sound like an anti-choicer.mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
Or are you saying even abortions where the womans life is at risk should be illegal?I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.oftenreading said:mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
https://twitter.com/harrysteindc/status/1133401696883945472?s=21
Ah yes his best accomplishment trickle down at its best , I’m tired of looking at my savings account swelling with all the $$ from the tax cuts ...jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure.PJ_Soul said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.oftenreading said:mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
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.mcgruff10 said:
Yes both sides in each issue should meet somewhere in the middle. Now what the middle is I am not sure.PJ_Soul said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.oftenreading said:mcgruff10 said:
Well there you go! You just proved my point.PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
No I mean there is no middle ground and neither side wants to give an inch.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
Got ya. The abortion and gun argument are very similar.mrussel1 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
"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."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
People abort because of the sex of the baby? That's some messed up shit right there.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.
You're really trying to argue that control over bodily integrity is the same as the privilege to purchase an inanimate object?
Are you saying that you are so pro choice that an abortion can be performed after a woman’s water breaks?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help