POLITICAL THREAD

[MegaBlue05]

Mega, There maybe be one person on here who would support that baloney and that would be Memaw1945. Not even the evangelical right on here are dumb enough to support a young earth creationist theme park.

I hope so, Willy.

I don't care if it gets built. I just don't want to have public anything associated with it.

Memaw likely will be one of the first 500 through the Ark's turnstiles. And if there's ONE steal beam in that thing I call BS on its authenticity.

 

[Big_Blue79]

An abortion costs less than an IPhone I believe. I read that the average cost of an abortion is about $450.

I'm unaware of anyone keeping tabs on how many women tried to get an abortion but couldn't because of a lack of clinics nearby. I suspect any figure stated would just have to be a wild guess. Might have to travel a bit to find a clinic but there are plenty around.

So your original number was useless at best, misleading at worst. Good to know. I'm unaware, too. Now we're back to the world where evaluating how hard or easy it is to get an abortion is based on facts and context. Next up - SCOTUS case re: Texas abortion law.

 

[jamo0001]

So your original number was useless at best, misleading at worst. Good to know. I'm unaware, too. Now we're back to the world where evaluating how hard or easy it is to get an abortion is based on facts and context. Next up - SCOTUS case re: Texas abortion law.

Next up on starchief's list of firm assertions: Americans have no problem at all making it to the beach when they want to do so.

 

[-LEK-]

Fox News has a slant. NBC has a slant. MSNBC has a slant. Etc.

Nowadays, it's very important to get your news from multiple sources, and then try to sift it down to something that resembles truth.

If this is even possible, but agree, they all have a slant. More of an interest in keeping viewers watching. Emotional response best way

 

[WettCat]

I don't particularly have a problem with capital punishment in cases where there is absolutely no doubt...i.e. you caught them in the act. But otherwise I don't trust the justice system enough to get it right. Especially in cases where the accused has no resources and is left with a public defender that might have 100 other active cases at the time and probably assumes that his own client is guilty and puts 15 minutes of prep work into their defense.

Liberals are so effing blind to their own double standards it's unbelievable. So, an unborn baby...where there is NO DOUBT about their innocence, they've had NO justice system to defend their rights in any way shape or form, and it is ok to kill them? Just shoot that medical tool right up in there, squash the brains and rip the body out with no more "proof" than the mother signing a consent form?

WTF kind of justice is that? If the law says it's legal, then it's legal. But to justify it based on getting a fair trial--is total BS. This is why I really struggle with liberal decision making.

 

[-LEK-]

So an acorn is an oak tree now? Good stuff

 

[-LEK-]

Glad we can finally move to the abortion talk. #blessed.

I prefer wars as my way of killing innocent people.some call me old fashioned

 

[From-the-stands]

If the extent of your concern about journalistic integrity is limited to Fox, you are a close minded minion.

Sounds like CNN and MSNBC too

MSNBC for sure.

Lol please stop voting. Tell your friends.

Did you even read the Forbes story?

 

[warrior-cat]

Perhaps because of this?

I don't particularly have a problem with capital punishment in cases where there is absolutely no doubt...i.e. you caught them in the act. But otherwise I don't trust the justice system enough to get it right. Especially in cases where the accused has no resources and is left with a public defender that might have 100 other active cases at the time and probably assumes that his own client is guilty and puts 15 minutes of prep work into their defense.

I can agree with this. No doubt in case is needed.

 

[warrior-cat]

Never underestimate the power of the American Taliban. They are all around me at work. Insidious bunch. Their little ark project is precious to them therefore all of us should be expected to pay for it. They need something to point to in order to affirm their delusions.

You are too dumb to post here, please leave.

 

[warrior-cat]

I hope so, Willy.

I don't care if it gets built. I just don't want to have public anything associated with it.

Memaw likely will be one of the first 500 through the Ark's turnstiles. And if there's ONE steal beam in that thing I call BS on its authenticity.

I don't mind it being built, put the public should not pay for it. But, with that being said, the public should not have to pay for a lot of things we are paying for.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

Is God going to call Ted Cruz home if it doesn't get built?

 

[fuzz77]

Liberals are so effing blind to their own double standards it's unbelievable. So, an unborn baby...where there is NO DOUBT about their innocence, they've had NO justice system to defend their rights in any way shape or form, and it is ok to kill them? Just shoot that medical tool right up in there, squash the brains and rip the body out with no more "proof" than the mother signing a consent form?

WTF kind of justice is that? If the law says it's legal, then it's legal. But to justify it based on getting a fair trial--is total BS. This is why I really struggle with liberal decision making.

First, I find it interesting that pro-life advocates like to use the method used in a tiny fraction of abortions as the description for them all. 1% of abortions happen after 20 weeks....and nearly all after that are done so when it is known that they fetus isn't healthy or has serious birth defects or the health of the mother is in jeopardy.

I'm also not really sure why you would want to force someone who doesn't want to be a parent, to be a parent? I also don't see pro-life advocates lining up to provide for these "kids". Cover the medical expenses of pregnancy, and costs of raising a child.

I'd much rather end a life that was never intended, has never taken a breath, has no responsibilities...than one that has.
People are going to have sex and people are going to end pregnancies. There is no 100% certain birth control other that abstaining and that is a unrealistic expectation. 89% of abortions occur in the first trimester...62% in the first 8 weeks.
Several main line religious denominations think that the decision to abort should be between the woman and her conscious. Presbyterians, Methodist, United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, Lutherans... it is a subject matter for which there are no compromises possible.

But are you not equally hypocritical?
What justification is there for executing someone who did no crime? They are both decisions made by humans and prone to mistakes. Yeah, let's trust the cops and legal system when we see almost daily how it fails people over and over.

 

[warrior-cat]

"I'm also not really sure why you would want to force someone who doesn't want to be a parent, to be a parent? I also don't see pro-life advocates lining up to provide for these "kids". Cover the medical expenses of pregnancy, and costs of raising a child."

I guess with this mentality you should be able to abort them up to the age that they can support themselves.

 

[Willy4UK]

MSNBC for sure.

Did you even read the Forbes story?

FTS, CNN is just as bad. CNN will fabricate any story in order. CNN are drama whores

 

[krazykats]

If they were Democrats and Rush Limbaugh had said that, he would be excoriated for it by MSNBC and the like. True story. Not saying it's racist, but there is a huge double standard there about what is perceived as racism and what isn't.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make? Someone said without trump who wants to watch 2 Cubans debate........however there are other white people involved and a poster here called racism.

I called BS.

Now your saying if the Cubans were democrats and it was Rush Limbaugh saying who wants to watch.......that it would be racism then?


I don't care who calls it racism it isn't. It's the truth! But I'd watch just for a chance for Rand to get more of a chance to speak.

 

[Willy4UK]

"I'm also not really sure why you would want to force someone who doesn't want to be a parent, to be a parent? I also don't see pro-life advocates lining up to provide for these "kids". Cover the medical expenses of pregnancy, and costs of raising a child."

I guess with this mentality you should be able to abort them up to the age that they can support themselves.

Warrior, who's gonna pay for these unwanted children? Tax payers.

 

[krazykats]

"I'm also not really sure why you would want to force someone who doesn't want to be a parent, to be a parent? I also don't see pro-life advocates lining up to provide for these "kids". Cover the medical expenses of pregnancy, and costs of raising a child."

I guess with this mentality you should be able to abort them up to the age that they can support themselves.

Sounds good to me! I mean there is essentially no difference in aborting them whenever or sending them out in the streets to steal, sell drugs, stay drunk and live a life in and out of jail. If your not able to parent your children an abortion is an honest truth you may need to face!

 

[WettCat]

Warrior, who's gonna pay for these unwanted children? Tax payers.

Maybe we should just kill anyone in a state assisted mental institute. Or in prison at government expense. Or pull the plug on those with severe medical needs unless the family or the insurance company is willing to pay for their care? Or..let's just clean out the nursing homes--they aren't really providing any value and it sure costs a lot of money for their care.

THAT'S the old liberal caring spirit. If they are basically unwanted...why should we keep them alive unless they can pay for their own care?

 

[From-the-stands]

Maybe we should just kill anyone in a state assisted mental institute. Or in prison at government expense. Or pull the plug on those with severe medical needs unless the family or the insurance company is willing to pay for their care? Or..let's just clean out the nursing homes--they aren't really providing any value and it sure costs a lot of money for their care.

THAT'S the old liberal caring spirit. If they are basically unwanted...why should we keep them alive unless they can pay for their own care?

Trotting out an ole false equivalence.

 

[Willy4UK]

Maybe we should just kill anyone in a state assisted mental institute. Or in prison at government expense. Or pull the plug on those with severe medical needs unless the family or the insurance company is willing to pay for their care? Or..let's just clean out the nursing homes--they aren't really providing any value and it sure costs a lot of money for their care.

THAT'S the old liberal caring spirit. If they are basically unwanted...why should we keep them alive unless they can pay for their own care?

Still didn't answer the question. Who's gonna pay for it. Technically I answered the question. Tax payers.

I agree that cuts across the board has to happen, but if you're gonna cut social services across the board and then try to make abortion illegal. Well, you've just opened up a whole new can of worms. Florida cut funding for AIDS, guess what? Florida now leads America in the biggest increase in AIDS cases. No brainer there.

The #1 reason for emergency room visitations in the late 1960s were women who were aborting children themselves. What you gonna do? Put those women in jail.

I swear you people think money grows out of trees. Ignorant.

 

[augustaky1]

If it is a woman's right to choose and terminate a pregnancy, does the sperm donor have the right to choose and opt out of responsibility?

The mother has a right to choose and decides to have the baby do I have the right to choose and give up all rights and responsibilities and walk away free and clear?

I am honestly not up on the laws. Only "sea lawyer" stuff.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

If it is a woman's right to choose and terminate a pregnancy, does the sperm donor have the right to choose and opt out of responsibility?

Sure, if the sperm donor is going to carry the child inside them for nine months while their body is flooded with hormones changing their entire metabolism and potentially causing once benign growths to turn cancerous, then have your body turn diabetic only for the duration of the pregnancy.

 

[augustaky1]

Sure, if the sperm donor is going to carry the child inside them for nine months while their body is flooded with hormones changing their entire metabolism and potentially causing once benign growths to turn cancerous, then have your body turn diabetic only for the duration of the pregnancy.

I really do not have an answer.... There is not an easy one.

So, basically she gets to choose... But not only for her, but for me and the child?

My point being..no one should be able to make such a personal choice for a woman. I agree 100%

But I also, believe no one should be able to force a lifetime commitment on another person. "I" should be just as free to sign an opt out consent form and be done with it.

Personally I would never choose that route. Goes back to my original thought. Abortion should never be used as birth control and/or out of convenience.

Edit to clarify, I would not opt out of my responsibility. I do believe there are times that abortion is probably the right course of action.

 

[jamo0001]

I really do not have an answer.... There is not an easy one.

The answer is "whatever financial or social investment the father has in the child pales in comparison to the investment the mother has".

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

If you don't want to donate sperm then don't be a sperm donor because if you decide to donate sperm then their may be some unwanted/unintended consequences that go along with it.

Now, as for the actual pregnancy, how can it be said a woman has the same right to pursue her life and liberty in the same way a man does if the government is going to force her to carry to term a child she does not want and undergo all the health ramifications associated with it for nine months out of her life?

There is a big difference in deciding something that only affects other people than deciding upon something that is going to directly affect you. Nobody is "pro abortion" and it is clearly a horrendous decision to make, but taking that decision away from the person that actually has to do it and then having government tell them they must do it is not freedom. The choice belongs to the woman as she's the one that has to do it. Not the man. Not the government. Not her god. Her and her alone.

 

[augustaky1]

The answer is "whatever financial or social investment the father has in the child pales in comparison to the investment the mother has".

I do not dispute that at all.

My problem lies with one has the right to choose. One does not.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Still didn't answer the question. Who's gonna pay for it. Technically I answered the question. Tax payers.

I agree that cuts across the board has to happen, but if you're gonna cut social services across the board and then try to make abortion illegal. Well, you've just opened up a whole new can of worms. Florida cut funding for AIDS, guess what? Florida now leads America in the biggest increase in AIDS cases. No brainer there.

The #1 reason for emergency room visitations in the late 1960s were women who were aborting children themselves. What you gonna do? Put those women in jail.

I swear you people think money grows out of trees. Ignorant.

I guess it's going to come from the same fund that pays for all of these illegal sacks of trash that come over here?

 

[KingOfBBN]

If you don't want to donate sperm then don't be a sperm donor because if you decide to donate sperm then their may be some unwanted/unintended consequences that go along with it.

Now, as for the actual pregnancy, how can it be said a woman has the same right to pursue her life and liberty in the same way a man does if the government is going to force her to carry to term a child she does not want and undergo all the health ramifications associated with it for nine months out of her life?

There is a big difference in deciding something that only affects other people than deciding upon something that is going to directly affect you. Nobody is "pro abortion" and it is clearly a horrendous decision to make, but taking that decision away from the person that actually has to do it and then having government tell them they must do it is not freedom. The choice belongs to the woman as she's the one that has to do it. Not the man. Not the government. Not her god. Her and her alone.

This is like giving the okay to murder a special needs kid because its a burden to the mother.

Serious question and this is the ultimate hypocrisy of the pro abortion crowd and the courts. Let's take a look at Lacey Peterson for example; the pregnant woman from California that was killed by her husband Scott. He was tried for TWO MURDERS.

How is that?

The baby wasn't "alive" yet the same way that people justify abortion. So you say "Well, she wanted the kid so that's different?" Really? The intentions/ of it change the reality? So if you want to be pregnant, all of a sudden inside you is a "baby." If you don't want to be pregnant, all of a sudden "it's just a mass of cells."

You say "no one is for abortion." That's obviously not true. There are tons that are for it and are totally okay with it. As a parent, I find that to be the most effed up mentality out there. It's pure evil.

And then to hear Fuzz being concerned about the death penalty because "innocent" people might die yet is okay with abortion.

It's like you guys are so committed to your ideology that you don't even see the hypocrisy that constantly follows.

 

[augustaky1]

If you don't want to donate sperm then don't be a sperm donor because if you decide to donate sperm then their may be some unwanted/unintended consequences that go along with it.

Now, as for the actual pregnancy, how can it be said a woman has the same right to pursue her life and liberty in the same way a man does if the government is going to force her to carry to term a child she does not want and undergo all the health ramifications associated with it for nine months out of her life?

There is a big difference in deciding something that only affects other people than deciding upon something that is going to directly affect you. Nobody is "pro abortion" and it is clearly a horrendous decision to make, but taking that decision away from the person that actually has to do it and then having government tell them they must do it is not freedom. The choice belongs to the woman as she's the one that has to do it. Not the man. Not the government. Not her god. Her and her alone.

Your first statement says it ... Unwanted/unintended consequences go with it...

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

My problem lies with one has the right to choose. One does not.

Swallow a bowling ball then walk around with it for nine months, then come back and tell us if things are a little clearer for you.

 

[jamo0001]

I do not dispute that at all.

My problem lies with one has the right to choose. One does not.

If they have more investment in the matter and the question has a yes/no answer, then what the hell type of choice do you think you're entitled to have?

 

[Willy4UK]

I guess it's going to come from the same fund that pays for all of these illegal sacks of trash that come over here?

hahaha exactly

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

This is like giving the okay to murder a special needs kid because its a burden to the mother.

Rest is a bunch of crap.

Fair enough. No, it is not like murdering a special needs child. The special needs child is already born and it not being carried by the mother. It is not directly impacting the health of the mother. It is not dependent upon the mother's body in order to survive.

As I said, nobody is pro abortion. Nobody wants women making that decision. But it is hers to make as it is her body. What greater intrusion by government could there possibly be in telling a woman she must carry a child she does not want for 9 months? I don't even know how this can be a question.

That's not me lobbying for a woman to do that. That's not me even agreeing with the practice of abortion. It is simply me acknowledging who has the say-so over their own body and what goes on inside it. A man telling a woman she must keep that child inside of her is the ultimate arrogance as if a man had to do it then this wouldn't even be a question and you know it.

 

[augustaky1]

Swallow a bowling ball then walk around with it for nine months, then come back and tell us if things are a little clearer for you.

I don't think I am the one who said something along the lines of....

If you don't want the unintended/unwanted consequences, don't do the act...

On this I agree with you 100%. I think that is a great piece of advice.

Please correct me if I misunderstood your meaning.

But believe me I agree with you. If you don't want the responsibility, think ahead.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Fair enough. No, it is not like murdering a special needs child. The special needs child is already born and it not being carried by the mother. It is not directly impacting the health of the mother. It is not dependent upon the mother's body in order to survive.

As I said, nobody is pro abortion. Nobody wants women making that decision. But it is hers to make as it is her body. What greater intrusion by government could there possibly be in telling a woman she must carry a child she does not want for 9 months? I don't even know how this can be a question.

That's not me lobbying for a woman to do that. That's not me even agreeing with the practice of abortion. It is simply me acknowledging who has the say-so over their own body and what goes on inside it. A man telling a woman she must keep that child inside of her is the ultimate arrogance as if a man had to do it then this wouldn't even be a question and you know it.

The rest of it is crap when I point out a huge hypocrisy in abortion? Are you serious? I just gave you a GD example of both situations where there's a baby in the womb of two women. One wants it and is murdered and her baby dies. The killer is charged with its murder. Another woman doesn't wants it, kills the baby and it's totally okay.

That's total BS.

Also, if we're going the route of "its her body. They can do what they want." Okay then. Then why is it illegal to use drugs? It's a woman's body, right? It doesn't matter if she's pumping herself full of crank so who cares, right?

Another example of hypocrisy and selective enforcement.

What about pregnant women who have been prosecuted for using drugs while they're with child?

Again. More hypocrisy.

Your whole justification is if something is a burden to someone somehow makes that baby's life less valuable.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

No, I don't think you understood the distinction I was making. Physically a man is involved in one fleeting moment and then he is done with it. So his decision is just that. Don't donate the sperm if you don't accept the consequences.

A woman is much more. She carries the child. She undergoes dramatic changes in her body (please research all the changes a woman's body undergoes during pregnancy to understand how profound it is), her life changes dramatically in a very real and personal way which is separate and apart from how a man is impacted.

So you do have a double standard. You should have a double standard. This is not an even exchange. A man has nowhere near the skin in the game that a woman does for a pregnancy so it is utterly arrogant for men to be telling women what they must do with their bodies. I can't put it any simpler than that.

 

[Willy4UK]

The rest of it is crap when I point out a huge hypocrisy in abortion? Are you serious? I just gave you a GD example of both situations where there's a baby in the womb of two women. One wants it and is murdered and her baby dies. The killer is charged with its murder. Another woman doesn't wants it, kills the baby and it's totally okay.

Well, on a state level, states define what a fetus is. The federal gov't has its own definition of it. Varies from state to state. That's prolly why. Plus if the woman is 8 months pregnant, yeah I can see a double homicide. But if the woman is a week knocked up, then no. 1 single murder charge.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

The rest of it is crap when I point out a huge hypocrisy in abortion? Are you serious? I just gave you a GD example of both situations where there's a baby in the womb of two women. One wants it and is murdered and her baby dies. The killer is charged with its murder. Another woman doesn't wants it, kills the baby and it's totally okay.

That's total BS.

Also, if we're going the route of "its her body. They can do what they want." Okay then. Then why is it illegal to use drugs? It's a woman's body, right? It doesn't matter if she's pumping herself full of crank so who cares, right?

Another example of hypocrisy and selective enforcement.

What about pregnant women who have been prosecuted for using drugs while they're with child?

Again. More hypocrisy.

Your whole justification is if something is a burden to someone somehow makes that baby's life less valuable.

With all due respect you are not pointing out anything. You are using failed logic and false equivalencies. Legal definitions speak for themselves and face judicial review up to and including the Supreme Court so there is no point in bring them into this discussion as they are a red herring.

Criminal activity is also a red herring and does not contribute to the discussion. Drug laws are not designed based upon what the drug does or does not do to the individual, they are designed to protect the public from people with altered states of mind from harming the public at large. But again, that is an entirely separate discussion.

 

[augustaky1]

I will say this and try to drop it

I agree that no one should tell a person what to do with their body or life. No one.

IMHO abortion should never be used as birth control or just because someone does not want the responsibility or it is inconvenient.

Am I wrong? Odds are, definitely. I can live with it.

But, my option is just as valuable as yours and carries equal weight.