Pro-choicers: What would you say if you met an abortion survivor?

[Rigby5]

You and Adolf have this in common. Hitler said non-Aryans weren't persons either. Sick murderer!

Wrong.
Adolf knew he was at least significantly Jewish.
Hitler never believed non-Aryans weren't persons.
For example, over 100,000 members of Hitler's Wehrmacht were Jewish, and unmolested.
What Hitler correctly perceived is that Zionists were traitors since their main allegiance was not to Germany, those above Hitler told him whose property they wanted to confiscate, and since Germany was starving, he had to make choices as to who got fed.

 

[miketx]

That is just a lie.
We did NOT defeat the Japanese with the nuclear bombs, and they had NOTHING at all to do with their surrender.
In fact, we killed more in each conventional bombing of large cities like Tokyo.

We know what caused the Japanese to surrender was the mining of the Sea of Japan, between Japan in China, that cut off all the imports from the mainland.
We know the Japanese were starving to death, because we know they were trying to surrender, through the Russian ambassador, for over a year.
The reality is that we would not let them surrender, until AFTER we had used them to test the 2 bombs we had made, one uranium and one plutonium, so we could see which worked better.

I know, after vaporizing two of their cities along with 100 to 200 thousand people, no one in their right mind would give up!

 

[miketx]

That is just a lie.
We did NOT defeat the Japanese with the nuclear bombs, and they had NOTHING at all to do with their surrender.
In fact, we killed more in each conventional bombing of large cities like Tokyo.

We know what caused the Japanese to surrender was the mining of the Sea of Japan, between Japan in China, that cut off all the imports from the mainland.
We know the Japanese were starving to death, because we know they were trying to surrender, through the Russian ambassador, for over a year.
The reality is that we would not let them surrender, until AFTER we had used them to test the 2 bombs we had made, one uranium and one plutonium, so we could see which worked better.

Wrong.
Adolf knew he was at least significantly Jewish.
Hitler never believed non-Aryans weren't persons.
For example, over 100,000 members of Hitler's Wehrmacht were Jewish, and unmolested.
What Hitler correctly perceived is that Zionists were traitors since their main allegiance was not to Germany, those above Hitler told him whose property they wanted to confiscate, and since Germany was starving, he had to make choices as to who got fed.

This is what insanity looks like.

 

[woodwork201]

Which is why I don't use the term "Pro-choice". I use the term "Abortion Rights". It would be nice if women didn't have abortions or smoked... but honestly, I don't think it's my place to tell anyone else how to live.

The war on drugs has been an epic failure. Same with laws against prostitution. You can't legislate morality.

Actually, we can, we have, and we should legislate morality. Many, perhaps most, prostitutes are prostitutes against their will. It is the laws against prostitution that allow the police to intervene and, often, save the lives of prostitutes being in forced sexual slavery by criminal gangs and enterprises.

And we most certainly must tell others how to live when the way they live is a threat to the lives and rights of others. We do it all the time. Even laws about keeping lawns mowed or property cleaned tell people how to live and rightfully so. For instance, rubbish and trash, unkept lawns, etc., represent a health and safety risk to those around even without going on the offending property. Therefore most cities have regulations about both of those. They should be applied reasonably and minimally, but they most certainly should exist.

 

[miketx]

I use the term "Abortion Rights

There is no right to an abortion. Show where it says so in the constitution.

 

[miketx]

Actually, we can, we have, and we should legislate morality

Sieg Heil Komrade!

 

[woodwork201]

Except you are forcing her to carry a fetus for nine months, with all the related health related effects, including bone loss, bladder and urinary changes, etc. Women who WANT babies are happy to endure these things. Women who don't, not so much.

Women have control of their bodies. When they choose to have sex they need to understand the chances of creating a child and understand that it may happen. Then they should think about whether having sex, probably bad sex, is worth having to carry a baby for 9 months, having bone loss, bladder and urinary changes (man that sounds just wicked, doesn't it? urinary changes?), etc. If they don't think the sex is worth that, just say NO.

If they say no and someone forces the issue, I'm all for a life sentence or death penalty for interfering with the woman's control of her body. Once it becomes "their body" instead of "her body", then she needs a consult with the others sharing her body. If all occupants agree, and are over the age of adulthood to legally sign (which, obviously, can never happen), she can have her uterus vacuumed all she wants.,

 

[woodwork201]

You sound crazy. Ima red flag you!

Once again, you prove my case. Not only are you supporting red-flag laws, you're threatening to abuse them just as predicted that gun controllers like you would do.

 

[woodwork201]

Wrong.
Adolf knew he was at least significantly Jewish.
Hitler never believed non-Aryans weren't persons.
For example, over 100,000 members of Hitler's Wehrmacht were Jewish, and unmolested.
What Hitler correctly perceived is that Zionists were traitors since their main allegiance was not to Germany, those above Hitler told him whose property they wanted to confiscate, and since Germany was starving, he had to make choices as to who got fed.

Ohhh.. Hitler liked Jews, you say... Thanks for clearing that up because somehow I thought that when he called them germs that he didn't think they were human. And then I thought he hated Jews because he murdered millions of them...

You kinda like, ol' Adolf, don't you? He's lucky to have folks like you defending him and his ideas today; it keeps him relevant.

 

[woodwork201]

Sieg Heil Komrade!

You're either amazingly stupid or amazingly dishonest.

You don't think we should have laws banning abortion? Because that's the morality that JoeB131 is complaining about legislating is abortion. I think it's both. You're both amazingly stupid and dishonest.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Fetuses aren't people.

And giving a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside is taking rights away from the woman.

You'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide.
You'd be able to charge women with child abuse for smoking, having a sip of whine, or eating the wrong foods during pregnancy

You people didn't think this through at all.

You are the one whining!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I would strike up conversation by asking their thoughts on climate change, and explain my belief that over population by humans is the true driving force behind climate change, due to reduced global foliage caused by clearing land to build human infrastructure.

How does reduced global foliage cause global warming? Start another thread instead of trying to derail this one.

 

[miketx]

You're either amazingly stupid or amazingly dishonest.

You don't think we should have laws banning abortion? Because that's the morality that JoeB131 is complaining about legislating is abortion. I think it's both. You're both amazingly stupid and dishonest.

Nothing amazing about you, you're just another lying fascist.

 

[woodwork201]

Sieg Heil Komrade!

You're amazingly stupid. You blindly accept the word of men in robes when they tell you stuff that you can read for yourself that the Constitution objects to what they're telling you.

And then, in the case of regulating morality, where the men in robes tell you it's within the States' power, and the Constitution agrees with them, you respond with a salute to your Nazi master.

The contradiction just proves that you have never actually studied the Constitution and you only know what you think you know from reading Internet forums.

Here's what the Supreme Court says on legislating morals:

As recently as 1991 the Supreme Court spoke in Barnes v. Glen Theatre of "[t] he traditional police power of the States" as one which "we have upheld [as] a basis for legislation"; this plurality opinion of the Court defined it as "the authority to provide for the public health, safety, and morals."​

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=jcl

The Constitution places very little restriction on the States so, according to the 10th Amendment, the States have pretty much whatever power they wish to have other than those explicit restrictions in the Constitution - you know, like not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the states have police powers since 1827 - that's fairly concurrent to the time of ratification. Police power, in this context, is not the man with badge and a gun; it's the power of the States to pass laws that, as the Court said in 1991 above, provide for the public health, safety, and morals.

 

[miketx]

You're amazingly stupid. You blindly accept the word of men in robes when they tell you stuff that you can read for yourself that the Constitution objects to what they're telling you.

And then, in the case of regulating morality, where the men in robes tell you it's within the States' power, and the Constitution agrees with them, you respond with a salute to your Nazi master.

The contradiction just proves that you have never actually studied the Constitution and you only know what you think you know from reading Internet forums.

Here's what the Supreme Court says on legislating morals:

As recently as 1991 the Supreme Court spoke in Barnes v. Glen Theatre of "[t] he traditional police power of the States" as one which "we have upheld [as] a basis for legislation"; this plurality opinion of the Court defined it as "the authority to provide for the public health, safety, and morals."​

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=jcl

The Constitution places very little restriction on the States so, according to the 10th Amendment, the States have pretty much whatever power they wish to have other than those explicit restrictions in the Constitution - you know, like not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the states have police powers since 1827 - that's fairly concurrent to the time of ratification. Police power, in this context, is not the man with badge and a gun; it's the power of the States to pass laws that, as the Court said in 1991 above, provide for the public health, safety, and morals.

Tell me another lie, commie.

 

[woodwork201]

Tell me another lie, commie.

You've long since quit trying to debate the points and have reverted to name calling because it's all you have. Defend the claims I have made, Elmer.

 

[miketx]

You've long since quit trying to debate the points and have reverted to name calling because it's all you have. Defend the claims I have made, Elmer.

No, I don't waste my time with blatant liars like you. Most all the conservatives here know me and would tell you that your claims about me are dead wrong. So spew some more bullshit about me, you're making yourself look like a bigger and bigger fool.