Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[superchuck500]

Yea, I can directly see the through-line from the death of Ginsburg, to the appointment of ACB, to this upcoming overturning of Roe. And I do think there’s some value is being able to tie those events together in showing that nothing happens in a vacuum and decisions and events in politics can and do have consequences many years later.

But I also think this absolutely deserved its own thread.

Yeah, this one for sure. Ideally, after ACB was confirmed, the more general abortion discussion should have been on a thread on that topic, either new or existing.

But it can be hard to know exactly when a new thread is warranted. For example, the January 6 thread has evolved from when it began before January 6 discussing the plan, then on January 6 when the events happened, and then the fallout and investigations. A lot of interesting and breaking news and subtopics on that thread have emerged . . . but it's all still logically within the same topic. Other instances are murkier.

 

[Taurus]

Lots and lots of typical hyperbole "don't fully realized women as full humans", 'enslaving women'. Too bad none of it even makes sesne, but hey, I get it, when your argument is based on 'feelings' and emotions because it lacks both logic and common sense, you must rely on over the top emotion catchers.

Says the guy who waves images of aborted fetuses around.

Classic GOP projection.

 

[Farb]

Says the guy who waves images of aborted fetuses around.

Classic GOP projection.

By 'wave around' do you mean provide a link to an article/tweet that had aborted fetuses in it?

Classic liberal emotional over reaction.

 

[SystemShock]

when your argument is based on 'feelings' and emotions because it lacks both logic and common sense, you must rely on over the top emotion catchers.

And the theological argument is full of logic and common sense?

 

[Taurus]

By 'wave around' do you mean provide a link to an article/tweet that had aborted fetuses in it?

Classic liberal emotional over reaction.

Yes, that.

Aww, are you rumphurt 'cause I'm using the exact same effective techniques the Right has been using for decades? It's amusing you'd try to use a concept like shame, which is so utterly alien to your ideology, to get me to feel bad for blowing your arguments out of water on all fronts. Emotional as well as logical.

When you've got nothing else, whine.

 

[Farb]

Yes, that.

Aww, are you rumphurt 'cause I'm using the exact same effective techniques the Right has been using for decades? It's amusing you'd try to use a concept like shame, which is so utterly alien to your ideology, to get me to feel bad for blowing your arguments out of water on all fronts. Emotional as well as logical.

When you've got nothing else, whine.

How did you blow my argument? By stating that anyone that is pro-life wants to enslave women?
Or the well thought out and superbly presented 'own' that I don't consider women to be 'fully human'? (Both of the statements are very transphobic by the way)
So, in your mind, which one of your emotional hyperbole responses blows up the pro-life argument? I will wait.

 

[Farb]

And the theological argument is full of logic and common sense?

I am not aware of making a theological arguments. Do you consider all pro-life arguments to be theological in nature?

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I am not aware of making a theological arguments. Do you consider all pro-life arguments to be theological in nature?

Is your objection to abortion, or being pro-choice, theologically based?

 

[MT15]

He has stated it was.

 

[SystemShock]

Take this quiz and see.

Online Quizzes: Take Online Quiz - ProProfs

Online Quizzes - Take online quiz using ProProfs online quiz maker. Ideal for quizzes, online testing & exams.

www.proprofs.com

One of the problems in this having the discussion... people claim I reduce people to their genitals, and here is the reduction of women to just makeup. The poses and angles with the intent to deceive don't help the case either.

 

[SystemShock]

I am not aware of making a theological arguments. Do you consider all pro-life arguments to be theological in nature?

I am sure you stated as much before. I may look for the post later, but for now (in my best Foxworthy):

If your argument claims that life starts at conception, your argument may be a theological argument.
If your argument asserts that fertilized eggs and/or zygotes have souls, your argument may be a theological argument.
If your argument posits the sanctity of life, your argument may be a theological argument.
If your argument champions abstinence, your argument may be a theological argument.
If your argument refutes plan B, your argument may be a theological argument.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

By 'wave around' do you mean provide a link to an article/tweet that had aborted fetuses in it?

Classic liberal emotional over reaction.

e-waving.

 

[V Chip]

One of the problems in this having the discussion... people claim I reduce people to their genitals, and here is the reduction of women to just makeup. The poses and angles with the intent to deceit don't help the case either.

So you’re saying you can’t tell.

 

[SystemShock]

So you’re saying you can’t tell.

What I am saying, the exercise is meant to be deceitful, and that it reduces womanhood to makeup-wearing. Still, even though those pictures of carefully chosen models are purposely shot and enhanced to be deceitful, some are still recognizable.

 

[wardorican]

Can you give me some examples of me trolling?
Unless not agreeing with someone despite how strong they think they proved their case is considered trolling, I am curious on what you will come with.

Your post I was replying to is pretty close.

You seemingly intentionally misrepresented what I said to continue to talk past me.

Otherwise, almost every single post you make where you use some sort of pejorative term, like 'woke' or 'libs' as if that alone makes your point. You're simply trying to get a rise out of people vs making an intelligent point.

 

[Farb]

Is your objection to abortion, or being pro-choice, theologically based?

As much as my position against murder is theologically based.

 

[Farb]

I am sure you stated as much before. I may look for the post later, but for now (in my best Foxworthy):

If your argument claims that life starts at conception, your argument may be a theological argument.
If your argument asserts that fertilized eggs and/or zygotes have souls, your argument may be a theological argument.
If your argument posits the sanctity of life, your argument may be a theological argument.
If your argument champions abstinence, your argument may be a theological argument.
If your argument refutes plan B, your argument may be a theological argument.

So you can see no other way to be pro-life other than religious zealotry?

While I am religious, I have talked with several people that don't believe God and are pro-life and my views about abortion have remained the same despite where I am in my faith (I was agnostic for most of my mature life).

 

[Farb]

Your post I was replying to is pretty close.

You seemingly intentionally misrepresented what I said to continue to talk past me.

Otherwise, almost every single post you make where you use some sort of pejorative term, like 'woke' or 'libs' as if that alone makes your point. You're simply trying to get a rise out of people vs making an intelligent point.

Well, obviously I think you are wrong. LOL
I only tend to use the terms 'woke' and 'libs' when replying to being called a bigot or whatever. If you want to have a honest discussion with me, approach me that way and not as a guardian of the truth or the board manners police. I have no problem discussing any topic that you would like (if I understand it, I don't claim to smart).
So, where do you want to begin?