Jump to content

US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Why expect me to trust a known conservative nutcases who defends RELIGIOUS beliefs about 'value'?

And trust a Prog to slip into slurs when his argument gets obliterated.

What's left seems to be what you think about me and what I belief and how you believe it's connected to every wrong you believe can find in any sect or exception to the rule.

In case you're interested you're wrong about all of it. And I say that as a first source to what I believe. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

There are almost a half million American kids in foster care. Why not adopt one of them?

I said there were line-ups. There are. Some will go out country to adopt rather than sit in the line-ups.

So in answer to your question "Why not adopt one of them." Bureaucratic incompetence slows the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Shapiro is vastly more credible than you are

and his arguments are vastly better than yours

if Ben Shapiro is a low bar

that just speaks to how you aren't even capable of clearing it

and makes you look even worse

Oh, I'm sorry Ben. I didn't realize this was you! 

 

I think your bias is showing. Fame for being a pretentious success at his profession is like a Motivational Speaker suckering his audience on his own virtue as an intellectual adviser of 'success' based on how he became successful by becoming a Motivational Speaker. Such circular reasoning gets past you morons but ...whatever floats your boat, I guess. But don't expect me to count his argument as profound and rationally appealing simply because you can't notice the distinction of valid arguments. 

The argument BEGS signficance. The question posed to him was how he could seems to uniquely determine THAT an unborn fetus has 'morals'.? His response was to alter the defense by defaulting to assume that ALL life regardless of age is 'moral', get applause for the added insult against the 'evil atheist' and the reaction of the background unfriendly audience to non-concervative non-religious rationale. 

It reminds me of the 'Chewbacca' defense South Park mocked about using irrelevant appeals that sound as though they are more significant for emphasizing its irrationality. Those who validate the effectiveness appeal to the emotional way the defense is argued and NOT its content that is unrelated to the question at hand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Oh, I'm sorry Ben. I didn't realize this was you! 

 

I think your bias is showing. Fame for being a pretentious success at his profession is like a Motivational Speaker suckering his audience on his own virtue as an intellectual adviser of 'success' based on how he became successful by becoming a Motivational Speaker. Such circular reasoning gets past you morons but ...whatever floats your boat, I guess. But don't expect me to count his argument as profound and rationally appealing simply because you can't notice the distinction of valid arguments. 

The argument BEGS signficance. The question posed to him was how he could seems to uniquely determine THAT an unborn fetus has 'morals'.? His response was to alter the defense by defaulting to assume that ALL life regardless of age is 'moral', get applause for the added insult against the 'evil atheist' and the reaction of the background unfriendly audience to non-concervative non-religious rationale. 

It reminds me of the 'Chewbacca' defense South Park mocked about using irrelevant appeals that sound as though they are more significant for emphasizing its irrationality. Those who validate the effectiveness appeal to the emotional way the defense is argued and NOT its content that is unrelated to the question at hand.

 

What a lot of nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes really. I don't live in your fantasy world.

Of course not. You're comfortable in your own where what you would like to believe is the new reality.

I prefer to believe what my eyes see. I see evidence of lineups to adopt so I believe they exist.

And I've seen enough that I don't find this hard to believe:

"While it is difficult to find an exact, accurate number to answer this question, Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption. Based on this couples waiting to adopt statistic, many couples are waiting to adopt."

https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Oh, I'm sorry Ben. I didn't realize this was you! 

 

I think your bias is showing. Fame for being a pretentious success at his profession is like a Motivational Speaker suckering his audience on his own virtue as an intellectual adviser of 'success' based on how he became successful by becoming a Motivational Speaker. Such circular reasoning gets past you morons but ...whatever floats your boat, I guess. But don't expect me to count his argument as profound and rationally appealing simply because you can't notice the distinction of valid arguments. 

The argument BEGS signficance. The question posed to him was how he could seems to uniquely determine THAT an unborn fetus has 'morals'.? His response was to alter the defense by defaulting to assume that ALL life regardless of age is 'moral', get applause for the added insult against the 'evil atheist' and the reaction of the background unfriendly audience to non-concervative non-religious rationale. 

It reminds me of the 'Chewbacca' defense South Park mocked about using irrelevant appeals that sound as though they are more significant for emphasizing its irrationality. Those who validate the effectiveness appeal to the emotional way the defense is argued and NOT its content that is unrelated to the question at hand.

 

those who devalue the lives of people to justify killing them are immoral

if you're entire argument revolves around doing that in the case of unborn children in order to sell your bullshit to morons

then it's a weak argument and deeply immoral

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

And trust a Prog to slip into slurs when his argument gets obliterated.

What's left seems to be what you think about me and what I belief and how you believe it's connected to every wrong you believe can find in any sect or exception to the rule.

In case you're interested you're wrong about all of it. And I say that as a first source to what I believe. 

So you've been reduced to arguing that I'm just plain 'wrong' just 'because you stated it? More Chewbacca [see my last comment to your  commrade above.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ironstone said:

This is such a contentious issue with both sides. But one side has a long history of using very incendiary rhetoric which only makes things worse for everyone. Judges are already being threatened and the Democrats seem fine with it.

This kind of talk is all too normal from people that should know better.

 

The democrats are the real and true enemy of we the people. They have done nothing for America or the American people except to try and take away their rights and freedoms and gun rights and give them transgenderism and socialism. What a deal, eh? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

So you've been reduced to arguing that I'm just plain 'wrong' just 'because you stated it? More Chewbacca [see my last comment to your  commrade above.]

No. Having trouble understanding what a "first source" reference is, are we?

It's like this:

If you start telling me what I believe I tell you, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. And I base that on first source knowledge (which would be me.) I am first source on what I believe. 

Get it? 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

those who devalue the life of unborn children are immoral

if you're entire argument revolves around doing that in order to sell your bullshit to morons

then it's a weak argument

What about preconceived babies. Do they also count? 

Hmmm. What about jerking off. Do you save your semen because it represents an 'unborn child' potentially? 

When discussing 'morals', these need to be defined and then proven how they are somehow 'universal' regardless of one's particular background. Such subjective appeals are strictly religious. We DEFINE morals tentatively through that very system you go against: government!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

What about preconceived babies. Do they also count? 

Hmmm. What about jerking off. Do you save your semen because it represents an 'unborn child' potentially? 

When discussing 'morals', these need to be defined and then proven how they are somehow 'universal' regardless of one's particular background. Such subjective appeals are strictly religious. We DEFINE morals tentatively through that very system you go against: government!

saying morals are religious in origin

doesn't invalidate them

the government does not define what is moral

life begins at conception

jerking off kills no unborn children

abortion does

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

What about preconceived babies. Do they also count? 

Hmmm. What about jerking off. Do you save your semen because it represents an 'unborn child' potentially? 

"Preconceived babies?"

What's that? I saw what looks to be some Prog troll T shirt connecting the term to menstruation. Is that what you're talking about? Because that would be ridiculous.

Menstruation and masturbation would have nothing to do with "Life begins at conception."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

No. Having trouble understanding what a "first source" is, are we?

It's like this:

If you start telling me what I believe I tell you, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. And I base that on first source knowledge (which would be me.) I am first source on what I believe. 

Get it? 

No. I only understand that you simply assert belief without considering how those opting for abortion also have their own subjective beliefs to be respected with at least the same respect you expect of me to you for yours. Why does YOUR beliefs matter more significantly than others? Why, especially given you are a mere anonymous avatar here, do you presume I should trust your 'wisdom' over my own regardless? I didn't see you respect logically valid argumentation and so do you think I should trade that for authority of an adversarial view who predefines me as an enemy for lacking faith in your concepts of what is or is not 'moral/immoral'? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

No. I only understand that you simply assert belief without considering how those opting for abortion also have their own subjective beliefs to be respected with at least the same respect you expect of me to you for yours. Why does YOUR beliefs matter more significantly than others? Why, especially given you are a mere anonymous avatar here, do you presume I should trust your 'wisdom' over my own regardless? I didn't see you respect logically valid argumentation and so do you think I should trade that for authority of an adversarial view who predefines me as an enemy for lacking faith in your concepts of what is or is not 'moral/immoral'? 

So what if somebody's belief is that murder is fine? Should we accept that too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

No. I only understand that you simply assert belief without considering how those opting for abortion 

Belief of what, though? You were telling me earlier what I believe. I'm merely telling you, you were wrong then and if you still believe you have some special knowledge of what I believe without asking me you're as clueless now as you were then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

And I believe you were having trouble understanding how the internet creates a knew world of knowledge sharing that wasn't available in the days of your "back alley abortions."

Start here for relevant examples:

Finding Help in the 21st Century: Foster Parent Networks

How did they become foster children in the first place? That's the thing, once they are born you lose interest in them. Any concern an inch deep.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

How did they become foster children in the first place? That's the thing, once they are born you lose interest in them. Any concern an inch deep.

you don't care about them at any point

so even if your strawman was accurate, they'd still care vastly more than you

since you prefer abortion to foster care, since you use foster care issues to justify abortion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, RedDog said:

 

Why do angry pro Roe women always react as though every abortion involves a raped and molested minor? It’s as though EVERY abortion in the history of the world involved minors.

In reality, most by far are after-the-fact lazy birth control. You KNEW how to avoid pregnancy before hand.

Why out of touch men always try to invalidate women's outrage with the ruling? Why not focus on the fact that too many men are irresponsible fathers, leaving the burden of raising a child solely to the mother.  They care about the fetus, not the child!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

you don't care about them at any point

so even if your strawman was accurate, they'd still care vastly more than you

since you prefer abortion to foster care, since you use foster care issues to justify abortion

Foster parents do, you sure as hell don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Luz P. said:

Why out of touch men always try to invalidate women's outrage with the ruling? Why not focus on the fact that too many men are irresponsible fathers, leaving the burden of raising a child solely to the mother.  They care about the fetus, not the child!

Women got to be ruled. Men just talk about responsibility. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Foster parents do, you sure as hell don't.

you don’t care

and project that lack of care on me

foster care issues don't justify abortion

nor do they prove conservatives don't care about children after birth

just drop that from your lame argument

it's just dumb af

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you don’t care

and project that lack of care on me

foster care issues don't justify abortion

nor do they prove conservatives don't care about children after birth

just drop that from your lame argument

it's just dumb af

Whats insane in the US is they have laws to protect sea turtle eggs but nothing to protect human life at conception. 

The pro death liberal cult is something

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...