Reply With Quote
the majority were in support of it. in other words, the were for invading Iraq. please stop fooling yourself into thinking it was purely the doing of Republicans. Obama used it on Hilary in '08 because he knew she was vulnerable because of it, too.
Unless the rape victim has been, say, tied to a bed for a week, or in a coma, or scared of what her parents would do if they found out, or, or or.
the majority were in support of it. in other words, the were for invading Iraq. please stop fooling yourself into thinking it was purely the doing of Republicans. Obama used it on Hilary in '08 because he knew she was vulnerable because of it, too.
or maybe she could just realize the life inside of her had absolutely nothing to do with what happened...
anyway, for victms of rape i never stated i was for keeping the baby. in those cases, i'd allow an abortion to happen for the simple fact that i think having a kid by a rapist would probably be emotionally traumitizing for the women. that and if the pregnancy poses health concerns for the mother. other than that, i don't agree with it.
Fine I'll give you Iraq; you give me the bailouts.
bush started the bailouts.
Or perhaps you could respect the choices made by others as it pertains to the course of their lives/wellbeings.
I'm not trying to come of as a jackass and I don't mean to sound harsh here, but that's what it boils down to.
Good for you. I don't agree with it either, but I don't have to carry it around for nine months, either -- it isn't for me to say IMO.
As for your first comment... sounds great on paper.
So did communism, swinging marriages, and any number of ideals felled by human emotion/weakness.
since when did opinions become like trading cards
tbh, it isn't just liberals that advocate "the murder of a defenseless person"... when the death penalty is carried out, does the guilty person has any chance to defend himself? Not really.
So to make things 'right' in that aspect too, I think it's time we have a "The Running Man" kind of TV show (Fox would probably be all over this), or a Roman Coliseum type of event where these death row people fight a lion with their bare hands for their lives or something to that extent.
I can already imagine Taco Bell sponsoring this kind of event.
We're playing revisionist history here.
"More" responsible means fully responsible. Republicans in the House were the ONLY group fighting the bailouts.
When was my post, 18 minutes ago?
18 minutes ago.
Factually speaking, there were more Republicans supporting the bailouts than against it. You can just check the roll call. We did this exercise not two months ago.
Would get great ratings, tbh.
I entered into a fight with Boutons; at his level. You people are making this WAY too difficult.
Sorry, I'll just move back to my cave.
k, just confirming that he really has no reason to give you anything.
He doesn't need to respect , because it's very likely it isn't really his opinion. He's merely spreading the word from an imaginary being residing in his head.
Now this conversation should REALLY turn interesting
Greatest troll job ever ... tbqh this guy is a serious threat to occupy Bush Jr's proposed spot on Mount Rushmore:
If I found out God didn't exist tomorrow, I'd still be pro-life. And I'd still get called a Bible thumper.
If you found out tomorrow that a fetus isn't "alive" until some arbitrary time after fertilization (for example's sake, let call it 3 months), would you still be "pro-life"?
Ultimately what "right" we have to kill or not to kill varies, and abortion is hardly the only case. As I pointed out earlier, there's death row. Then there's killing under the war umbrella. Then killing in self-defense. Basically, what's justified "killing" is whatever as a society we make it to be.
What if the fetus had oil though, Nono? Would it be worth killing then?
Or WMD? Could we launch a drone if we can't reach him?
Good questions all around, tbh.
More reason for an amendment to the cons ution that restricts "moral legislation" unless the activity deprives another person of something tangible (property, rights, money, employment, life, etc).
Which would force government to once and for all declare what stage of development qualifies as person-hood.
If I found out God did exist tomorrow, I'd still be pro-choice.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions