A Touchy Question On Gendercide Or In This Case Homocide

[koshergrl]

I've never argued for biblical law. The assumption that everybody who argues for babies is doing so out of religious fervor is your own thing. It has nothing to do with reality. You have to make up arguments that are different than the ones being made to distract from the appalling nature of your own.

Well, gee, then why is always the religious wingnuts like yourself that get all worked up about it if it isn't a religous issue, then?

What a retarded comment, and evidence that you aren't arguing to the point.

 

[Unkotare]

Dumping everything in your purse out on the floor is not an "argument," champ. Let's go back and have you answer my previous question, ms. 'out-of-the-park.'

I already answered your question. It's just too bad that your Home-skule didn't teach you critical thinking enough to understand it....

I'll bet you were the Valedictorian of your home-skule, though.

You did NOT answer the question. Are you still afraid to do so? If you feel like you need to boast about your education (which I'm sure is super, super impressive) then go ahead. No need for stupid, baseless 'guesses' about mine.

 

[Unkotare]

Who is saying that? Anyone other than you? For you the issue is about your existential insecurities? That's your ******* problem. Don't inject the issue and then demand that it is the central one.

It's the only issue here.

Again, who is insisting on that besides you?

Hey, joeblow, answer the question. What are you afraid of?

 

[Unkotare]

I've never argued for biblical law. The assumption that everybody who argues for babies is doing so out of religious fervor is your own thing. It has nothing to do with reality. You have to make up arguments that are different than the ones being made to distract from the appalling nature of your own.

Well, gee, then why is always the religious wingnuts like yourself that get all worked up about it if it isn't a religous issue, then?

For a guy who seems to want to boast of his education, you sure have a hard time with basic logic.

 

[The T]

Dumping everything in your purse out on the floor is not an "argument," champ. Let's go back and have you answer my previous question, ms. 'out-of-the-park.'

I already answered your question. It's just too bad that your Home-skule didn't teach you critical thinking enough to understand it....

I'll bet you were the Valedictorian of your home-skule, though.

What an elitist piece of dogsqueeze you are.

Home-Schoolers are proven achievers, and focused...unlike the Union-Controlled schools that churn out failure after failure...but then who am I to accuse YOU of defending your precious falures called unions that aren't in it for children but for themselves?

*IDIOT*

 

[JoeB131]

And to further the SCOTUS with Roe v. Wade stepped on the 10th.

Or it just recognized political reality that women were going to get abortions regardless, so they might as well be safe and legal.

Now I've always felt that their reasoning that the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th to be a tad dubious, in this case.

But the reality is, women were getting abortions, no one was really being arrested for performing them or having them,

Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

Wow. That's pretty serious. I wonder how many arrests they made? Well, this "pro-life" website makes an astounding admission.

Why the States Did Not Prosecute Women for Abortion Before Roe v. Wade | Americans United for Life | AUL.org

There are “only two cases in which a woman was charged in any State with participating in her own abortion”: from Pennsylvania in 1911 and from Texas in 1922.2 There is no documented case since 1922 in which a woman has been charged in an abortion in the United States.

 

[JoeB131]

What an elitist piece of dogsqueeze you are.

Home-Schoolers are proven achievers, and focused...unlike the Union-Controlled schools that churn out failure after failure...but then who am I to accuse YOU of defending your precious falures called unions that aren't in it for children but for themselves?

*IDIOT*

The Home-Skulers I've encountered are actually kind of weirdos, and they never last long in a work environment where you have to be part of a team, and not the center of attention. And a lot of htem believe absolutely batshit crazy stuff, like the Dinosaurs died out because Noah didn't have room for them on the ark.

 

[JoeB131]

It's the only issue here.

Again, who is insisting on that besides you?

Hey, joeblow, answer the question. What are you afraid of?

I did. Get someone to help you with the big words.

 

[JoeB131]

I've never argued for biblical law. The assumption that everybody who argues for babies is doing so out of religious fervor is your own thing. It has nothing to do with reality. You have to make up arguments that are different than the ones being made to distract from the appalling nature of your own.

Well, gee, then why is always the religious wingnuts like yourself that get all worked up about it if it isn't a religous issue, then?

For a guy who seems to want to boast of his education, you sure have a hard time with basic logic.

When have I ever boasted about my education? Or talked about my education at all.

Which university did I attend? (I did attend one, but I don't think I've talked about it that much.)

The only time I've talked about my personal education, it has been to talk about what a bunch of psychos the nuns and brothers were in my Catholic education. (Although on the teaching stuff, they did a reasonably good job. It just took a while to excise the religious bullshit, which was obviously bullshit to me from the time I was 11.)

So another argument fail from Unky....

 

[Unkotare]

What an elitist piece of dogsqueeze you are.

Home-Schoolers are proven achievers, and focused...unlike the Union-Controlled schools that churn out failure after failure...but then who am I to accuse YOU of defending your precious falures called unions that aren't in it for children but for themselves?

*IDIOT*

The Home-Skulers I've encountered are actually kind of weirdos, and they never last long in a work environment where you have to be part of a team, and not the center of attention. And a lot of htem believe absolutely batshit crazy stuff, like the Dinosaurs died out because Noah didn't have room for them on the ark.

Yeah, and I've met a lot of atheist idiots who were the product of public schools. I have hired and had to fire a few of these bigoted, self-obsessed jerks.

 

[JoeB131]

Dumping everything in your purse out on the floor is not an "argument," champ. Let's go back and have you answer my previous question, ms. 'out-of-the-park.'

I already answered your question. It's just too bad that your Home-skule didn't teach you critical thinking enough to understand it....

I'll bet you were the Valedictorian of your home-skule, though.

You did NOT answer the question. Are you still afraid to do so? If you feel like you need to boast about your education (which I'm sure is super, super impressive) then go ahead. No need for stupid, baseless 'guesses' about mine.

Corky the retard is more educated than you are, guy...

 

[koshergrl]

And to further the SCOTUS with Roe v. Wade stepped on the 10th.

Or it just recognized political reality that women were going to get abortions regardless, so they might as well be safe and legal.

Now I've always felt that their reasoning that the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th to be a tad dubious, in this case.

But the reality is, women were getting abortions, no one was really being arrested for performing them or having them,

Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

Wow. That's pretty serious. I wonder how many arrests they made? Well, this "pro-life" website makes an astounding admission.

Why the States Did Not Prosecute Women for Abortion Before Roe v. Wade | Americans United for Life | AUL.org

There are “only two cases in which a woman was charged in any State with participating in her own abortion”: from Pennsylvania in 1911 and from Texas in 1922.2 There is no documented case since 1922 in which a woman has been charged in an abortion in the United States.

Cuz we all know women are criminal sluts.

Do you know what an *estimate* is?

It's a made up number.

There are also estimates that there were very few abortions in those years.

So prove your estimate is more likely to be correct?

 

[JoeB131]

What an elitist piece of dogsqueeze you are.

Home-Schoolers are proven achievers, and focused...unlike the Union-Controlled schools that churn out failure after failure...but then who am I to accuse YOU of defending your precious falures called unions that aren't in it for children but for themselves?

*IDIOT*

The Home-Skulers I've encountered are actually kind of weirdos, and they never last long in a work environment where you have to be part of a team, and not the center of attention. And a lot of htem believe absolutely batshit crazy stuff, like the Dinosaurs died out because Noah didn't have room for them on the ark.

Yeah, and I've met a lot of atheist idiots who were the product of public schools. I have hired and had to fire a few of these bigoted, self-obsessed jerks.

Actually, I went to Catholic schools for 12 years. Which is probably why I'm an atheist today.

Because no omnipotent being would hire these idiots as help.

and frankly, guy, boasting about the people you've fired as shift leader at McDonald's isn't impressing anyone.

 

[The T]

What an elitist piece of dogsqueeze you are.

Home-Schoolers are proven achievers, and focused...unlike the Union-Controlled schools that churn out failure after failure...but then who am I to accuse YOU of defending your precious falures called unions that aren't in it for children but for themselves?

*IDIOT*

The Home-Skulers I've encountered are actually kind of weirdos, and they never last long in a work environment where you have to be part of a team, and not the center of attention. And a lot of htem believe absolutely batshit crazy stuff, like the Dinosaurs died out because Noah didn't have room for them on the ark.

Noah and the Ark Gracie?

My elitist charge stands.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Cuz we all know women are criminal sluts.

Do you know what an *estimate* is?

It's a made up number.

There are also estimates that there were very few abortions in those years.

So prove your estimate is more likely to be correct?

An estimate is not a guess. It's a number derived at by taking samples and extrapolating. It is, incidently, how nearly every government, business and academic establishment determines numbers. So I'll take the estmate that indicates it was probably an awful lot.

We can also look at a country like the Philippines, where abortion is illegal, but surveys have estimated (which is they look at a sample and then extrapolated) that there are half a million abortions every year in that country, despite the place being very religious. Aborted fetuses are left on the steps of churches.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Nobody has the lawful (or defensible) "choice" to commit murder.

There are bounds to lots of things.

Grow up.

It's not murder just cause you say so, there are laws against murder. If it was murder, the law would be enforced.

I am not in the slightest bit interested in your quibble.

Abortion is NOT murder. No shit, Sherlock. The POINT is that YOU claim that the "choice" to have an abortion is a choice belonging entirely to the mother. And you argued that it is somehow hypocritical to place value on freedom of choice in all other contexts, but not in this. So, I pointed out to you that it's not true.

I place great stock in our liberties and freedoms. But I recognize -- all the same -- that there are LIMITS. And just because the ******* SCOTUS once "ruled" (legislated from the bench to be more honest about it) that there is a "right" to an abortion, that does not mean that there is no viable way to challenge that ******* unauthorized judicial EDICT.

I get it that YOU may not agree. I also get it that there ARE very thorny complications. The entire moral debate is beyond complicated. NEVERTHELESS, there are those who firmly commit themselves to the precept that the right to life is the PARAMOUNT right of all human beings. (Without life itself, there are no other rights.)

And some of these folks BELIEVE that a pre-born human being is no less entitled to that right to life itself than you are today. And to the extent that they are right and justified in that belief, then the right to "choice" does take a back seat. Just like our firm commitment to personal liberties does not authorize us to steal whatever we wish whenever we want something. And just like our belief that our home is our castle and that we have a legitimate expectation of a right to privacy in our homes does NOT make it "ok" to conspire to murder someone (as long as the conspiracy communications are conducted within our own walls).

There is a whole lot MORE to this "debate" than YOU seem willing to either recognize or admit. YOUR simplistic formulations are just that: simple. But simple is not the same as "right."

Now I see why this is so long. Its full of bullshit.

1st point I never said the choice is "entirely" up to the mother. But you need a straw man to argue with. Neither did I say "somehow hypocritical to place value on freedom of choice in all other contexts, but not in this." as you claimed...if you can find it post and stop translating. I speak english just fine. Thats just the first paragraph.

2nd Paragraph...Whew! Wow, so you are saying there are limits to freedom? Whoa, next you're going to tell me that trees have leaves and other mindblowing discoveries.

3rd paragraph...You can find people that believe all sorts of bullshit. Just because they believe it means diddly squat. And making laws or restrictions based on what some wackjob "believes" means nothing. Trying to make laws based on those idiots belief is giving the wack jobs credibility that wack jobs dont deserve because ...yanno, wacko

There is no more to this debate. Here's the debate in a nutshell. I say women have the right to choose according to the law and the wackos "believe" in a sky man that according to their interpretation of the sky man this legal thing should not be legal because they "believe it to be true"

If I believed that the bible entitled me to your money. Would you say, "This is my money BUT there is more to this debate."? Hell no But that is what you are doing taking the beliefs of one person or group and without evidence that these things are true you demand everyone make the people who believe feel better.

**** 'em...

 

[Unkotare]

Well, gee, then why is always the religious wingnuts like yourself that get all worked up about it if it isn't a religous issue, then?

For a guy who seems to want to boast of his education, you sure have a hard time with basic logic.

When have I ever boasted about my education? Or talked about my education at all. ....

You seemed to want to express a sense of superiority in that area. If not, were you just being a douchebag? Too bad you wasted an opportunity to learn something at your Catholic school, but at least you made it to college (I note "attended" but not 'graduated' but that's your business).

 

[Unkotare]

The Home-Skulers I've encountered are actually kind of weirdos, and they never last long in a work environment where you have to be part of a team, and not the center of attention. And a lot of htem believe absolutely batshit crazy stuff, like the Dinosaurs died out because Noah didn't have room for them on the ark.

Yeah, and I've met a lot of atheist idiots who were the product of public schools. I have hired and had to fire a few of these bigoted, self-obsessed jerks.

Actually, I went to Catholic schools for 12 years. Which is probably why I'm an atheist today.

Because you were too stupid to pay attention, think, and actually learn something while you were there? What a waste.

 

[JoeB131]

What an elitist piece of dogsqueeze you are.

Home-Schoolers are proven achievers, and focused...unlike the Union-Controlled schools that churn out failure after failure...but then who am I to accuse YOU of defending your precious falures called unions that aren't in it for children but for themselves?

*IDIOT*

The Home-Skulers I've encountered are actually kind of weirdos, and they never last long in a work environment where you have to be part of a team, and not the center of attention. And a lot of htem believe absolutely batshit crazy stuff, like the Dinosaurs died out because Noah didn't have room for them on the ark.

Noah and the Ark Gracie?

My elitist charge stands.

Only to right-wing funditards does "elite" become a bad thing.

Hey, when I'm sick, I want the "elite" guy working on me. And I want the "elite" guy flying the plane that gets me from point a to point b.

I certainly would not want someone who believes in a book of bronze age fairy tales that is debunked by science.

And this is the problem with certain elements of the GOP. Politics have become Dogma. The Oil Companies tell us that there's no global warming, and it must be true, even when it's 80 degrees in March in Chicago.

 

[Unkotare]

and frankly, guy, boasting about the people you've fired as shift leader at McDonald's isn't impressing anyone.

For someone so bad at guessing, you sure do seem to love trying.