US signs anti-abortion declaration with group of largely authoritarian governments

[Monk-Eye]

" Puritanical Church Of Manifest Poverty "

* Critics Without Viable Alternatives *

Objectively, the very creation of PP, racist in its nature, IS racism in practice....Study Sanger.

Just because over population and generational poverty is conditionally associated with a particular race does not mean that making abortion available to those who would prefer to elect the option for purposes of escaping those conditions is racist .

The definition of racism must include illegitimate aggression based on race that would mean coercion and being forced into abortion base upon race and not simply being provided with the option .

http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/docs/kerner.pdf

Even if violence does not occur, the consequences are unacceptable. Development of a racially integrated society, extraordinarily difficult today, will be virtually impossible when the present black ghetto population of 12.5 million has grown to almost 21 million.

 

[Correll]

" Tough Titty Tables Turned "

* Liability Without Say *

So, all the responsibility is on the man, and none on the woman?

The man provided his sperm freely and the fetus is private property of the mother by virtue of possession .

The bravado of hard legs knocking up welfare queens without accountability came to an end in Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia .

"Hard legs"?

But, yes. LIke I said, all the responsibility, no say. That is the way the world is, right now.

 

[Unkotare]

...

you think someone else should be able to tell YOU what you can do with your body? any part of it?

...

Almost every law does. You want it that way, you need it that way. You probably wouldn't survive long if it weren't that way.

 

[Unkotare]

...Just because over population ....

There is no "over population."

 

[Unkotare]

...

The definition of racism must include illegitimate aggression based on race...

"illegitimate"? So, you believe there IS "legitimate" aggression based on race? Scumbag.

 

[Unkotare]

...The definition of a person according to us statute does not include a fetus .
...

At one point in US history it did not include black people. Was that just, in your (admittedly worthless) opinion?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Greatest Blunder Of Libertarian Ethos "

* Political Science Dullards *

"illegitimate"? So, you believe there IS "legitimate" aggression based on race? Scumbag.

By definition violence is illegitimate aggression , where self defense against violence is legitimate aggression , which is the foundation of non violence principles

Thus , yes , there is such a thing as legitimate aggression .

Perhaps you are a member of the non aggression principle which defines illegitimate aggression as aggression by circular logic rather than an adequate application of language and theory ; indeed , its theorists were taking a nap during its development .

 

[Correll]

" Greatest Blunder Of Libertarian Ethos "

* Political Science Dullards *

"illegitimate"? So, you believe there IS "legitimate" aggression based on race? Scumbag.

By definition violence is illegitimate aggression , where self defense against violence is legitimate aggression , which is the foundation of non violence principles

Thus , yes , there is such a thing as legitimate aggression .

Perhaps you are a member of the non aggression principle which defines illegitimate aggression as aggression by circular logic rather than an adequate application of language and theory ; indeed , its theorists were taking a nap during its development .

Defense is not aggression. By definition.

His point was that you were stating that there is legitimate aggression based on RACE.

You seem to be agreeing.

Can you give an historical example?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Attending To Mental Stupor "

* Aimless Accusations About Caste *

At one point in US history it did not include black people. Was that just, in your (admittedly worthless) opinion?

Slaves were not ever considered to not be persons , rather they were considered to not be free .

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Standing up for the lives of the unborn that can not defend themselves is honorable.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

It would be medically impossible for me to be in the position...

Then you wouldn't really have any standing in the argument, would you?

Oh there is standing there....Look, If I am the male in the fight to save the unborn life that I helped create, then, while true that the woman has to carry the child, it is the father that will be supporting that child...So, do I have a say? You're damned right I do...

No you dont. You should be more responsible about who you are fucking.

So, all the responsibility is on the man, and none on the woman?

View attachment 406466

Every adult since the dawn of time takes chances on this. Most of the posters on this board are only here because of a mistake. The girl has a far bigger stake in this and her view outweighs anything you want to contribute.
Abortion denial is not about "saving babies". Its a fundie campaign to punish "sluts". Now fuck off and take your fake sensitivity with you.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Passive Aggressive Manners "

* Basics Of Individual Liberty *

Defense is not aggression. By definition.
His point was that you were stating that there is legitimate aggression based on RACE.
You seem to be agreeing.
Can you give an historical example?

Firstly , the definition of violence is illegitimate aggression and self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

By supposition , self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents - contracts ) are basic element of individualism , and by extension violating the basic elements of individualism is illegitimate aggression .

Within the bounds of legitimate aggression , one may apply the elements of self ownership and self determination base upon race .

Individuals can discriminate based upon race in their choice of mates , which is legitimate aggression .

Individuals can choose not to associate with others base upon race in any private organization such as membership clubs , which is legitimate aggression .

Free speech often includes legitimate aggression .

The government maintains it will not discriminate based upon race and implements policies for hiring practice that it extends to private institutions with which it enters into contracts .

Alternatively , private institutions are not not obligated to the same non discriminatory policy practices in hiring , which is legitimate aggression , no matter how much the left wing loonies blubber for an assault on that individual liberty .

The same conditions also apply regarding creed .

There is not a difference between religion and creed and unlike race , creed is transient , such that government should not ever include quotas based upon religion under a guise of maintaining non bias - National Security Agency Violating US First Amendment Establishment Clause .

Imagine Trying To Pass Tests Without Discriminating Between Correct Versus Incorrect Answers

" Imagine Trying To Pass Tests Without Discriminating Between Correct Versus Incorrect Answers " * A Corruption Of Split Minds * Eye am testing out other forums . Good luck !

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Unkotare]

" Attending To Mental Stupor "

* Aimless Accusations About Caste *

At one point in US history it did not include black people. Was that just, in your (admittedly worthless) opinion?

Slaves were not ever considered to not be persons ...

Not as full persons, you ignorant douche.

 

[playtime]

Yep .... so much for all the ' smaller less intrusive gov'ment' rhetoric if it involves a females' innards or who people love.

Even the most ardent of "small government" Conservatives will agree that the government has a legitimate role to play in protecting the lives and rights of children who can not speak for, nor defend themselves.

playtime is such a bitch, the way she pretends that there is no other perspective than her own.

^^^ most ironic post today ^^^

I address differences of opinion and/or policy. I don't pretend that they don't exist, like you just did, you brainless moron.

bullshit.

my point stands.

You pretended that your position on abortion was the only possible position, and then judged other based on your closed mind, ignoring their completely valid perspectives.


That was you being an asshole.


I don't do that to you.

when it comes to abortion - there IS only one position possible.

a woman should have full autonomy.

any other position is NOT valid, because there can only be one final decision.

you think someone else should be able to tell YOU what you can do with your body? any part of it?

to hell you don't do that -

'my point stands ' is yer M.O.

People tell me what I can or can't do with "my body" all the time, especially when it is involves another person's body also.


Did you really not know that? Are you stupid? Blinded by ideology?

are you stupid enough to think i meant the false equivalency of not sticking a needle in yer arm or tweaking on a pipe to say uhhhhh....

not being allowed to get a vasectomy when you want one?

god damn... how'z about throwing yer ass in jail if you do get one against the deep state orders that you can't?

I understand perfectly what you meant. You made a the claim that a person should have complete autonomy over their own body. Actually you said "woman" but I don't see what gender has to do with your point.


My point is that when what a person wants to do with their body, impacts on another person's body, society makes laws.


I was not thinking of drugs. I was actually thinking of the young and attractive woman I saw last night, very sexily dressed. I would have liked to see what was under her top. But that would have impacted HER body and her rights and would have been wrong. Morally and LEGALLY.

Thus rules against it. Which I fully support. Even though it undermines my "autonomy".


(i'm assuming that she would not been willing to show an middle aged guy of her own free will. Though I have been taking pretty good care of myself recently so...well, I digress)

i said 'woman' because the discussion is about abortion.

drugs impact society & are detrimental to society as a whole.

a personal & final decision to end a pregnancy is not.

if anything, it's the opposite if you wanna consider poverty & child abuse as a mitigating factor in households where children aren't wanted.

& adopting out is definitely a possible psychological detriment to the WOMAN forced to carry for 9 months.

Well, discussing the impact is a different discussion. You made the claim that the "woman" has "autonomy" and thus society has no right to "tell her what to do".


If we are moving on to discussing the impact of possible actions, that is making the argument that her decision is the right one and thus should be allowed.


Yet, you did not conceded the previous point.... So... wait a moment. I've seen this before.


You made your point, I refuted it, and now you want to just jump to another point, with the full intent that if I refute that one, you will return to your previous, ALREADY REFUTED POINT, as though it was new and fresh.


It is called Circular Debating and it is a tactic one uses, WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE WRONG.


You know you are in the wrong here, and that you cannot defend your position based on it's actual merits. So you play dishonest troll games.


View attachment 406458

i did no such thing. follow the bouncing ball:

female is pregnant.

female gets the final decision because female is pregnant.

abortion is the females' option if the final decision - which is the females' decision to make & has to be since it is the females' body that will carry full term for 9 months, endure the pain of birth, & then be responsible for that pregnancy for a minimum of 18 years.

my point stands.

 

[playtime]

...

you think someone else should be able to tell YOU what you can do with your body? any part of it?

...

Almost every law does. You want it that way, you need it that way. You probably wouldn't survive long if it weren't that way.

when you agree that the gov'ment says YOU CAN'T procreate & the choice is not yours to make & they castrate you... we'll revisit this m'k?

 

[playtime]

Standing up for the lives of the unborn that can not defend themselves is honorable.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

It would be medically impossible for me to be in the position...

Then you wouldn't really have any standing in the argument, would you?

Oh there is standing there....Look, If I am the male in the fight to save the unborn life that I helped create, then, while true that the woman has to carry the child, it is the father that will be supporting that child...So, do I have a say? You're damned right I do...

No you dont. You should be more responsible about who you are fucking.

So, all the responsibility is on the man, and none on the woman?

View attachment 406466

Every adult since the dawn of time takes chances on this. Most of the posters on this board are only here because of a mistake. The girl has a far bigger stake in this and her view outweighs anything you want to contribute.
Abortion denial is not about "saving babies". Its a fundie campaign to punish "sluts". Now fuck off and take your fake sensitivity with you.

 

[cnm]

Morals do not vary. Behaviors and mores may vary, but morality is immutable and universal by definition.

You know what a custom is? Imagine the crap you've filled your students' minds with. Best not to, perhaps.

moral adj 1 belonging or relating to the principles of good and evil, or right and wrong. 2 conforming to what is considered by society to be good, right or proper; ethical. 3 adhering to or based on conscience or a knowledge of what is right • a moral obligation. 4 having a psychological rather than a practical effect • moral support. 5 considered in terms of psychological effect, rather than outward appearance • a moral victory. 6 said of a person: capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. 7 supported by reason or probability, though not provable • a moral certainty. noun 1 a principle or practical lesson that can be learned from a story or event. 2 (morals) a sense of right and wrong, or a standard of behaviour based on this, especially in relation to sexual conduct • loose morals. morally adverb. ​

ETYMOLOGY: 14c: from Latin moralis, from mores, plural of mos a custom. ​

 

[cnm]

Oh there is standing there....Look, If I am the male in the fight to save the unborn life that I helped create, then, while true that the woman has to carry the child, it is the father that will be supporting that child...So, do I have a say? You're damned right I do...

No.

 

[theHawk]

Just how "authoritarian" is ripping an unborn baby out of the womb and murdering her/him?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Its none of your fucking business.

Its everyone's business according to those who want to control women.

The sexes are equal. If a man can be a female now, then we can have a say in the matter.

 

[playtime]

Just how "authoritarian" is ripping an unborn baby out of the womb and murdering her/him?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Its none of your fucking business.

Its everyone's business according to those who want to control women.

The sexes are equal. If a man can be a female now, then we can have a say in the matter.

' you ' can say anything you want, but there is only one final decision.

that goes to the one who is pregnant.

 

[JGalt]

Just how "authoritarian" is ripping an unborn baby out of the womb and murdering her/him?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Its none of your fucking business.

Its everyone's business according to those who want to control women.

The sexes are equal. If a man can be a female now, then we can have a say in the matter.

' you ' can say anything you want, but there is only one final decision.

that goes to the one who is pregnant.

Well here ya go...

American man claims to be five months pregnant with a baby girl.