KittenKoder
Senior Member
Which is why most of them are big-government leftists
That's the same thing as when pro-choice people say that all pro-life people are mother killers ...
The irony is that you don't see the irony in that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Which is why most of them are big-government leftists
Wrong, you idiot. Most of the pro-abortion crowd is 'liberals' who support the nanny state and the modern Democratic party as well as other neoliberal ideologies.
Why can't you go ten posts without showing how dishonest you really are?
You're an idiot. I never said neliberals were true liberals, you twit. If you're going to agree with me, just admit that I'm right and stop trying to make yourself look good.
The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have.
No, they don't. 'Progressives' (which is what you're describing) are not liberalsLiberals like more social programs
Modern neoliberalism is, just like modern neoconservatism founded upon social authoritarianism.Neolibs are the ones that like the banning of everything to "protect" people from themselves,
You're a fucking idiot. 'neoindependent' in nonsensical. An independent is an independent, not an old or a new independent. Nor is independence from political parties directly related to one's ideology other than as evicence that one's ideology is not strictly blind loyalty to a given party or title.you are a neoindependent.
The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have.
conservatism simply refers to reactionary movements, not to any real ideology
No, they don't. 'Progressives' (which is what you're describing) are liberalsLiberals like more social programs
Modern neoliberalism is, just like modern neoconservatism founded upon social authoritarianism.Neolibs are the ones that like the banning of everything to "protect" people from themselves,
You're a fucking idiot. 'neoindependent' in nonsensical. An independent is an independent, not an old or a new independent. Nor is independence from political parties directly related to one's ideology other than as evicence that one's ideology is not strictly blind loyalty to a given party or title.you are a neoindependent.
There you go projecting again.
I said:
Sounds like.
You responded with:
Where do you come up with this stuff? Yes, I'm pro-life. However, I never said or implied that I was free from sin nor did I say I would be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day. --> Projection.
Now this:
I think it's hilarious that you don't see killing the unborn as a sin and you want me to pray for you. You obviously don't see the irony here. Anyway, it made me .
Believe me, I pray for myself, my family, our leaders, the country, all sinners. All fall short of the glory of God. That includes me.
If you had really been reading my posts as you say you have, you would know that I believe life begins at the first heartbeat.
After that point I do not believe abortion should be legal.
Before that point I don't believe life has begun.
As such, I don't believe my position is a sinful one. You clearly disagree (or maybe you don't - I could be unintentionally projecting again). There's no irony here, merely a different view.
Why don't you drop the whole "killing the unborn" thing since it accomplishes nothing, and simply take issue with my view on where life begins. Who knows, you might convince me that I'm wrong and get me to change my view. Of course, I'm presupposing that you view this board as a place to debate and not just to fire off glib one liners and put downs.
This is my last attempt to engage with you on this matter. Either (a) make it worthwhile, (b) post some more snappy comebacks, or (c) ignore it. If you go for b or c I promise you'll hear no more from me on this particular exchange of views.
If you want to make this exchange worthwhile, you need to stop projecting and assuming you know my position. You obviously did not. You also stated that you were pro choice 'up to a point'. Now you've explained that to me. I'm only reading your posts as they pertain to our exchange. There are far too many posts in this thread for me to read each and every one of them.
You started this exchange off with "In nearly 2 years that's the most upsetting thing I've read." I obviously struck a nerve with you to the point that you posted "You, on the other hand are clearly pro-life, view yourself as free from sin, and will be welcomed into paradise on Judgement Day." Wow.
Since you believe life begins when the heart starts beating, I would guess that you are against almost all abortions. However, I'm sure a form of the morning after pill would be acceptable. True? I don't know when life begins. Perhaps when the heart starts beating, perhaps before. Since you're a Christian, you know that the Bible is not clear on this issue. Some quote the verse that God 'knew him before he was born' to mean that all abortions are wrong. I don't read it that way, but stopping a beating heart does indicate to me that murder has been committed.
Look, I'm just responding to your posts. You're the one who began this exchange and you're the one who started making assumptions and making snide comments. I simply followed your lead. What is sad is that we may have the same views on this subject, yet you say idiotic things like "you view yourself as free from sin." All I've said is "I would not like to be in (pro-choicer's) shoes come Judgement Day."
If you want to put me down, fine. Just don't expect me to sit here and take it. I realize that is not the Christian way, but I will promise you this: I will pray for you.
The true liberals and conservatives have the same core ideal on that subject actually, neither likes being told what to do, the only difference is how we preach it and what private "missions" we have.
conservatism simply refers to reactionary movements, not to any real ideology
No, they don't. 'Progressives' (which is what you're describing) are liberals
Modern neoliberalism is, just like modern neoconservatism founded upon social authoritarianism.
You're a fucking idiot. 'neoindependent' in nonsensical. An independent is an independent, not an old or a new independent. Nor is independence from political parties directly related to one's ideology other than as evicence that one's ideology is not strictly blind loyalty to a given party or title.you are a neoindependent.
You are still incapable of posting without being a troll, even when you are trying to discuss something. Crossing labels doesn't make them the same, progressives are not liberals, same species but different breeds. Also, you only used a partial quote of your post to dishonestly make me look bad, that's the same as lying.
But this fits perfectly with your original topic at least, your contention that pro-choice means anti-life. You are crossing labels just to make another look bad, since most pro-choice do have limits. I say most because there are the extremists in every group, clinic bombers ring any bells? The pro-choice extremists think there should be no restrictions, them you could consider anti-responsibility, but they are still not technically anti-life, unless you want to call all humans such, since we do kill, a lot, for many reasons. Yes, I can play semantics very well.
You haven't shown how the law is unequal,
It has been shown numerous times; you simply keep your eyes closed
It's obvious to anyone with a brain who the idiot is here, and it's you.
That's rich.
J
wait for it...
in other words, Modern Christian Marriage...
YOU'RE THE IDIOT WHO'S BEEN GOING ON ABOUT A MANDATE THIS WHOLE TIME
If you serve and earn it, yes. Anyone who serves and earns it qualifies, regardless of sex, race, etc.
Also, you're lying once again. You can't even state what 'my mentality' is The legal recognition of contract has nothjing to do with the welfare state, you idiot. Once again, you show the utter stupidity and dishonest nature of right-wing ideology
By the way, most of what you listed shouldn't even exist.
No ... now you are being dishonest by telling the truth ..
They can't win an argument WITH IT EITHER... Thus all the angst...
They know they're losing; so they just frail at everything like a thresher... there's no sound reasoning behind abortion as birth control... NONE! It's all one ridiculously obvious lie; but it's accepted because it's easier to accept than taking responsibility.
THe left says it's OK to have casual sex... "ITS FUN!" And No "HUMAN RIGHTS CRAP CAN INTERFERE WITH FUN!"
Of course many a Nazi had a blast plinking those targeted by their rationalizations and when the planet came to it's senses... "FUN" didn't quite cut a viable defense.
They know they're wrong... they're just suffering a strong illusion that 'because they're good people, what they are doing can't be 'THAT WRONG.'
This world is truly turning surreal...
Er, several points.
Firstly "they".. Can you stop grouping everyone together and try dealing with individual opinions instead?
Second, we're not "losing", nor do we "frail [sic] at everything". Opinion is pretty much split down the middle about abortion. As for flailing at everything, pro-choice arguments tend to be defensive not aggressive - the flailing usually comes from the "let the mother die" (deliberate, despite my earlier point) lobby.
Third, much of the pro choice lobby would never advocate abortion as birth control.
Fourth, it is OK to have casual sex. But if you're not using protection be aware that you are risking more than just an STD.
Fifth, your parallel between people viewing casual sex as "fun" and nazis viewing the annihilation of the jewish race as "fun" is outrageous.
I'm sure the casual sex side of the comparison can deal with it but how can you trivialize the holocaust in such a manner? That's fucked up.
Sixth, your "illusion" comment is a double edged sword. I'll bet those who kill abortion doctors think of themselves as "good people". Does that make them right?
The probability of someone reading the entirety of your rantings is negatively correlated with the use of caps lock...
They can't win an argument WITH IT EITHER... Thus all the angst...
They know they're losing; so they just frail at everything like a thresher... there's no sound reasoning behind abortion as birth control... NONE! It's all one ridiculously obvious lie; but it's accepted because it's easier to accept than taking responsibility.
THe left says it's OK to have casual sex... "ITS FUN!" And No "HUMAN RIGHTS CRAP CAN INTERFERE WITH FUN!"
Of course many a Nazi had a blast plinking those targeted by their rationalizations and when the planet came to it's senses... "FUN" didn't quite cut a viable defense.
They know they're wrong... they're just suffering a strong illusion that 'because they're good people, what they are doing can't be 'THAT WRONG.'
This world is truly turning surreal...
Er, several points.
Firstly "they".. Can you stop grouping everyone together and try dealing with individual opinions instead?
"They" is a rhetorical device which groups those INDIVIDUALS who share a common understanding... that you erroneously feel that your understanding is unique, is as irrelevant as it is wrong. So no... I will not cease the practice of accurately grouping commonalities... and I have a decades long record of tending to every individual argument which is placed before me; and the implication that such is not the case is quite ironically, another fallacious attempt to undermine the opposition's argument without having to speak directly to it...
Oh you're most incontrovertibly losing... and the assertion that you do not 'frail at everything' is dripping in the sweet irony that this very response is a CLASSIC and quite irrefutable example of you 'frailing at everything'... And opinion is not split down the middle of anything... There is not a single American who does not know that the taking the life of a pre-born baby, on the grounds that the HUMAN LIFE WHICH THE MOTHER CONCEIVED THROUGH HER WILLFULL DETERMINATION TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, IS DEEMED TO BE AN INCONVENIENCE, IS WRONG; that it is MURDER.
That there are US Citizens who lack the intellectual means to deal with that FACT and thus need to milk these untenable rationalizations... is irrelvant.
With regard to 'the imminent death of the Mother, due to the Pre-born baby's existance'... sound moral justification for taking that pre-born baby's life exist in the principle that where one life threatens the other, it is the DUTY of the other to defend itself...
Now is there room for debate on this point? Sure... But if it were my life which WERE ACTUALLY BEING THREATENED... Odds are I'd defend it by taking the life of that which manifested the threat. Some may disagree... as is their right. But I rarely consult with others in matter of my imminent safety.
With that said... such instances (where the Mother's life is actually at substantial risk by a pregnancy) are indiscernible in terms of a percentage of abortions.
And ROE is not about such RIGHTS... ROE is about ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL... THE TAKING OF INNOCENT LIFE WHICH IS DEEMED A PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE... and THAT IS THE ISSUE here.
The imminent threat argument is a damnable LIE.
I have NO PROBLEM with the Mother and a Doctor making such a decision... NONE what so ever; as long as that decision is based upon tangible medical facts and can be sustained by a reasonable reveiw of those facts; and where such decisions are found to rest on dubious grounds, those Doctors who came to such should be held to account and suffer the consequences for their malpractice of their art; which resulted in the death of an innocent human life.
Just like any other homicide...
Yet that is INCONTROVERTIBLY, PRECISLY THAT WHICH "MOST" OF THE PRO-ABORTION LOBBY ADVOCATES; PERIOD!
You simply do so, through these flaccid little sophistries which conclude that the pre-born human is a parasite; which by its very existance 'threatens' the mother's life...'
Which is not a reasonable position; and this despite your strong feelings to the contrary.
A threat to the Mother's life rests upon the MEDICAL CERTAINTY, BASED UPON REASONABLE MEDICAL FACTS; which determine that if left to it's natural course, the mother will not survive through the term of the pregnancy; thus the imminent death of BOTH MOTHER AND BABY.
Ahh... sure... because it's the transmission of the STD... (Which FTR; many in the Medical field believe accurately defines pregnancy; the transmission of a parasite which mutates into a fetus once established in the mother's uterus...)
Interesting... But here's the thing... If one KNOWS that such actiivty is going to breed the likelihood of such a transmission, one can't escape the RESPONSIBILITY of the RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT ACT.
You simply want to skip over that part...
Now where the transmitted STD is NON-HUMAN LIFE... it is perfectly justifiable to treat that STD for TERMINATION.
Where it IS HUMAN LIFE: THE RESPONSIBILITY SPIKES TO A LIFE LONG COMMITTMENT TO THE HUMAN BEING YOU CONCEIVED...
What I find coming from your argument is the accusation that to hold one to account for that responsibility is, as the BOY KING put it... "PUNISHING THEM WITH A BABY!"
And that argument is absurd on its face...
It's the same argument to claim that wherein someone goes to the Car lot and engages in a contract to buy a new car; that they shouldn't be PUNISHED WITH A CAR PAYMENT!, even IF and WHEN, in the wake of that heady shopping spree they 'come to their senses' and decide to CRUSH THE CAR!
Is it? So the Nazis engaging in the wholesale slaughter of innocents, due to the NAZIS misguided OPINIONS on the subject, is in no way analogous to the wholesale slaughter of innocents as a result of the MISGUIDED OPINIONS of those who the engage in casual sex and slaughter the innocent life which they conceive through their willful actions?
Golly... I have to disagree.
I'm sure the casual sex side of the comparison can deal with it but how can you trivialize the holocaust in such a manner? That's fucked up.
I doubt there is an end to the things which you're sure about that are just as absurd as this conclusion... if you'd like to specify a few, I'll deal with'em as you trot'em out.
But in this instance, what you've done is to admit by default, that you do not recognize the Pre-born human life as being at equity with any other human life... thus undermining the whole of your argument.
On the one hand you want to come off as a wise moderate who is defending the right of women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy... but otherwise respect the humanity of the pre-born human life... and on the other, you overtly declare that the taking of that human life, in numbers which DWARF the holocaust by many orders of magnitude; that this "trivializes" the lessor atrocity...
When in point of fact; they are both atrocious acts of unspeakable cruelty, unbridled ignorance and incomprehensible crimes against humanity.
Sixth, your "illusion" comment is a double edged sword. I'll bet those who kill abortion doctors think of themselves as "good people". Does that make them right?
And the Abortion doctors think of themselves as good people... despite their livelihood being founded upon the death of the most innocent of human life.
But what makes those who take the lives of such Doctors, right; is that they are protecting innocent human life; which is the duty of every individual.
Where I disagree with them, is in their not being present at the abortion; where the life is present and the threat is imminent.
Again the issue is not distinct from any other taking of human life... If one is present where another's life is threatened... it is the duty of every free sovereign to defend that innocent life.
But one cannot justifiably take action in retribution...
Such is a judgement call on the part of the individual; and for such, where one takes the life of another, which they reasonably believe is willfully engaged in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent; they will pay with their own life... where that wholesale slaughter of innocent life has been sanctioned by the prevailing power of the State.
You believe that because it's "LEGAL" that it's RIGHT... other's disagree in the strongest terms.
Again, this will all work itself out in the looming civil war... A war which will inevtiably come as a result of a divided culture, where diametrically oppossing 'OPINIONS' can no longer sustain any means to compromise...
The Ideological left advances with every compromise and with every advance the culture slides further into decay... sadly, that which the left attacks is the culture's principled foundation. In this case, the principle that human life is sacred.
Now when you add the natural tendency of mankind to resolve such contention through war; with the cultural ramifications of DECADES of indoctrination which has undermined any sense of the sanctity of human life... or the moral obligations common to devine human rights... the only potential result is a war which will realize unspeakable, dare I say, incomprehensible... brutality.
Now my position is now, what it always has been... which is, that to the extent of my means, I advocate for a cessation of the advancement of the addle-minded notions of the left... I present, again to the extent of my means, intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned arguments FOR THOSE IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLES WHICH SUSTAIN A SOUND CULTURE...
You take, at least on this instance, the countering point of view...
Now the problem comes when one realizes that such wars rarely come with a ton of warning... Oh sure, in hindsight there seems a clear enough set of indications; but foresight rarely enjoys that perspective.
So feel free to keep pushing TB... its your 'RIGHT'... unless you believe as do I, that one's RIGHTS come with RESPONSIBILITY to not violate the rights of others as one exercises those rights; if you DO... well then ya might want to reconsider that... as the civil war which inevitably results from this, is going to be a MAJOR VIOLATION OF ALL OF THEM and for EVERYONE; and from where I sit... its 100% the responsibility of the ideological left and for that, every single one of them is going to be held to account.
There is no right to "legal recognition of [a] contract"
Yes, there is. That is why we have the phrase 'legally binding contract'.
There's more to the legal issue of marriage than recognition of a contract
not really