Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 01:37:47 PM
Abortion is not protected by the Constitution outright in specific language, it can still fall under the penumbra of constitutional protections (Griswold v. Connecticut). In the same way the constitution did not specifically say speech over the internet is protected under the first amendment, or semi-automatic firearms are protected under the second amendment, there can be a logical inference that they fall within the constitutional shadow and are thus protected.
Currently Abortion is protected under the 14th amendment.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. This also applies to doctors.
Also, of interesting relevance to us here in the firearms community, abortion and gun control are basically the same argument from polar opposite sides:
Primary argument: "We need to ban (guns/abortions) for the sake of the children"
Courts rule: "no you can't ban (guns/abortions) outright, but states can make their own policies."
Individual states: "Well we don't like (guns/abortions) so we're gonna throw up obstacles like waiting periods, and mandatory classes, and proof of competency, and make it really hard to have (guns/abortions) in our state."
Believing the federal government or states should have the right to restrict one and not the other is quite hypocritical.
I believe both should be protected federally for everyone. I think no matter if you are against abortion for religious or scientific views. You should support the ability for all individuals in any state to make up their decision on what they believe if its prochoice or prolife on their own. Same with free speech, gun rights etc. It should be protected choice of freedom nationwide.
This applies to the press and everything. The left super liberals news have as much right to run as the right conservative news. You may hate on the other but you should protect their right to exist. Same with guns and everything. You can't pick and choose freedom.
Edited some posts together, used some words from Antisepsis
I voted choice 4, Personal choice. Much like gun rights
Post by: Brystont1 on October 12, 2020, 01:56:06 PM
Lets have the roundup thread because it keeps popping up in other threads. Try keep most of the talk here.
Abortion is not protected by the Constitution outright in specific language, it can still fall under the penumbra of constitutional protections (Griswold v. Connecticut). In the same way the constitution did not specifically say speech over the internet is protected under the first amendment, or semi-automatic firearms are protected under the second amendment, there can be a logical inference that they fall within the constitutional shadow and are thus protected.
Currently Abortion is protected under the 14th amendment.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. This also applies to doctors.
Also, of interesting relevance to us here in the firearms community, abortion and gun control are basically the same argument from polar opposite sides:
Primary argument: "We need to ban (guns/abortions) for the sake of the children"
Courts rule: "no you can't ban (guns/abortions) outright, but states can make their own policies."
Individual states: "Well we don't like (guns/abortions) so we're gonna throw up obstacles like waiting periods, and mandatory classes, and proof of competency, and make it really hard to have (guns/abortions) in our state."
Believing the federal government or states should have the right to restrict one and not the other is quite hypocritical.
I believe both should be protected federally for everyone. I think no matter if you are against abortion for religious or scientific views. You should support the ability for all individuals in any state to make up their decision on what they believe if its prochoice or prolife on their own. Same with free speech, gun rights etc. It should be protected choice of freedom nationwide.
This applies to the press and everything. The left super liberals news have as much right to run as the right conservative news. You may hate on the other but you should protect their right to exist. Same with guns and everything. You can't pick and choose freedom.
Edited some posts together, used some words from Antisepsis
I voted choice 4, Personal choice. Much like gun rights
The one argument you seem to gloss over, and it is the only one that matters, is whether or not a fetus is a life. Any other argument is irrelevant. I’ve seen in multiple threads you talk about “freedom as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s freedom.” Well abortion, if you believe a fetus is a human life, does infringe on the babies right to life.
Now if everyone could just agree that abortion Is not something to be proud of we could probably lay this topic to rest. At the end of the day, even as a pro life conservative I could live with abortion as long as it is rare, and not used as a method of birth control. When feminist start spouting “my body my choice” and “I’m proud of my abortion’s” the topic tends to go directly into the gutter.
You want your abortions? Fine, get it and shut the fuck up about it.
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 02:11:06 PM
The one argument you seem to gloss over, and it is the only one that matters, is whether or not a fetus is a life. Any other argument is irrelevant. I’ve seen in multiple threads you talk about “freedom as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s freedom.” Well abortion, if you believe a fetus is a human life, does infringe on the babies right to life.
Now if everyone could just agree that abortion Is not something to be proud of we could probably lay this topic to rest. At the end of the day, even as a pro life conservative I could live with abortion as long as it is rare, and not used as a method of birth control. When feminist start spouting “my body my choice” and “I’m proud of my abortion’s” the topic tends to go directly into the gutter.
You want your abortions? Fine, get it and shut the fuck up about it.
I purposely tried to leave that out because there's no convincing someone. People have different opinions on that. I don't think its alive. But I doubt I will convince anyone here. The easiest way to convince people is have them agree its a individuals choice and not to push their beliefs on others.
The only reason that feminist is screaming is because the other side is threatening. Im sure if we had no restrictions, the feminist side wouldn't have to protest. Same way we are protesting losing our gun rights but im sure if we had all of our rights we wouldn't be in the streets fighting.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 02:11:35 PM
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 02:12:47 PM
Your poll choices are incorrect.
How so?.
I think this covers all options unless I missed one?
Under no circumstances allowed
Under rape/incest
Under Medical or Genetic issues.
Personal choice
Forced
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 02:17:37 PM
Quote
Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
Quote
The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally
accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific
evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any
specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition
does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place
on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes
the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion
that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals
of the human species; i.e., human beings.
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 02:23:22 PM
Quote
What Is Science?
There is a lot of posturing about science in the world of politics, but some of what is reported as “science” is
actually just the claims of selected scientists, which happen to be at odds with the facts of science.
Science, in the words of Webster’s College Dictionary, is the “systematic knowledge of the physical or material
world gained through observation and experimentation.” Notably, this does not entail parroting the assertions
of someone with scientific credentials.
In the realm of science, what matters is facts and logically inescapable conclusions that flow from them—not
opinions, no matter who voices them or how prevalent they are. A classic example of this is Galileo, who wrote
that when it comes to the sciences, “the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny
spark of reason in an individual man.”
In this instance, Rubio is that man, and Carmon, Bump, and ACOG are substituting their ideology for science
in the public debate over abortion.
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/the-science-of-abortion-when-does-life-begin
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 02:24:59 PM
How so?.
I think this covers all options unless I missed one?
Under no circumstances allowed
Under rape/incest
Under Medical or Genetic issues.
Personal choice
Forced
Only one option can be selected. This separates options that belong together.
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 02:29:22 PM
TLDR: No one can say, no consensus religious or scientific.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 12, 2020, 02:29:26 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 02:30:16 PM
Only one option can be selected. This separates options that belong together.
Pick the one closest, its to prevent people voting "twice" Also I cant modify.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 02:32:19 PM
https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/04/when-does-life-begin-outside-the-christian-right-the-answer-is-over-time.html
TLDR: No one can say, no consensus religious or scientific.
Science already says. You just disagree with the science. A lot has been discovered and proven in life sciences since the 1970s.
Science is not based on "consensus". It's based on observation and experimentation. If you think consensus equals scientific fact, then you never hear the Earth was deemed by SCIENTISTS to be FLAT.
Consensus. Same argument used for Climate Change. Mob-dictated narratives.
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 02:33:34 PM
Science already says. You just disagree with the science. A lot has been discovered and proven in life sciences since the 1970s.
Science hasn't proven when consciousness beings. That is when I believe humanity beings.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 02:35:26 PM
I went to mcdonalds and got a baked strawberry pie. Not that deep fried shit.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Real strawberries, or that Frankenberry Fauxberries?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 02:44:39 PM
Pick the one closest, its to prevent people voting "twice" Also I cant modify.
That alone demonstrates you haven't read or retained what many of us here took much time and effort to post multiple times in response to your nonstop pro-abortion opinions.
To repeat myself and others, most people accept abortion decisions WITH limits and exceptions:
- limited to the first trimester, with the exceptions of:
- actual risk to the mother's life ... if carrying to term or birth threatens her life
- if the child was a result of rape
- if the child was a result of incest
(should not assume that rape or incest are always going to be acceptable as a single exception clause)
I strongly want to include "- if the parents are Liberal/Progressive/Socialist elitists", but I'll leave it at the above.
Post by: ren on October 12, 2020, 02:47:30 PM
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 02:47:51 PM
That alone demonstrates you haven't read or retained what many of us here took much time and effort to post multiple times in response to your nonstop pro-abortion opinions.
To repeat myself and others, most people accept abortion decisions WITH limits and exceptions:
- limited to the first trimester, with the exceptions of:
- actual risk to the mother's life ... if carrying to term or birth threatens her life
- if the child was a result of rape
- if the child was a result of incest
(should not assume that rape or incest are always going to be acceptable as a single exception clause)
I strongly want to include "- if the parents are Liberal/Progressive/Socialist elitists", but I'll leave it at the above.
There's no poll detailed enough for you. If I started to age length of time or heartbeats or exact circumstances, who the parents were etc we would have a 100 line poll. Use the post like this one to explain your beliefs.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 12, 2020, 02:47:52 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 12, 2020, 02:48:27 PM
All these threads omnigun created are designed to fracture us as a small community. Derails other threads then creates these divisive threads. No other purpose.Nah, just him. Pretty much everyone disagrees. 5 guys tell u ur drunk, u better not drive home.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 02:50:05 PM
All these threads omnigun created are designed to fracture us as a small community. Derails other threads then creates these divisive threads. No other purpose.
No I am trying to get everyone more accepting. So we can welcome the new liberal gun owners. There are plenty of new gun owners out there that do not share many of "your" views. We need to branch out not in. If we want to secure our rights we have to adapt to the new generations and people. The more popular your rights are the better you keep them.
I know some more liberal folks and I can't tell you the amount of times they are interested but they think the gun community is a bunch of redneck religious hicks who hate women's/lgbt rights etc.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 02:52:01 PM
No I am trying to get everyone more accepting. So we can welcome the new liberal gun owners. There are plenty of new gun owners out there that do not share many of "your" views. We need to branch out not in. If we want to secure our rights we have to adapt to the new generations and people. The more popular your rights are the better you keep them.
See? Arguing still.....
DIVIDER!!
Post by: ren on October 12, 2020, 02:55:43 PM
No I am trying to get everyone more accepting. So we can welcome the new liberal gun owners. There are plenty of new gun owners out there that do not share many of "your" views. We need to branch out not in. If we want to secure our rights we have to adapt to the new generations and people. The more popular your rights are the better you keep them.
I know some more liberal folks and I can't tell you the amount of times they are interested but they think the gun community is a bunch of redneck religious hicks who hate women's/lgbt rights etc.
this is a 2a forum and should be reflected as such. Before this I could care less about other issues. You came here in support of Biden and trumpeted how much you hate Trump then you changed your mind to libertarian. That didn't accomplish much no matter how much we told you that Biden would take away your guns.
Post by: groveler on October 12, 2020, 02:59:42 PM
No I am trying to get everyone more accepting. So we can welcome the new liberal gun owners. There are plenty of new gun owners out there that do not share many of "your" views. We need to branch out not in. If we want to secure our rights we have to adapt to the new generations and people. The more popular your rights are the better you keep them."I am trying to get everyone more accepting"
I know some more liberal folks and I can't tell you the amount of times they are interested but they think the gun community is a bunch of redneck religious hicks who hate women's/lgbt rights etc.
I tend to go by the written word that we have all agreed to.
Sorry if I can't find in our laws that WE voted on where
we have a right to kill kids. Maybe you can point that out to us?
Courts interpret law, they do not make it.
I'm sorry I'm not a very good liberal, but I'm a good
Libertarian.
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 02:59:58 PM
this is a 2a forum and should be reflected as such. Before this I could care less about other issues. You came here in support of Biden and trumpeted how much you hate Trump then you changed your mind to libertarian. That didn't accomplish much no matter how much we told you that Biden would take away your guns.
You guys helped convince me not to vote biden. Its a two way street. 2a rights are not the only thing that exist in the world or people care about. To get more people to respect 2a you have to accept their views on other things like climate change and abortion, etc.
Post by: ren on October 12, 2020, 03:01:21 PM
Nah, just him. Pretty much everyone disagrees. 5 guys tell u ur drunk, u better not drive home.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
well you can drive home drunk in omnigun's utopia
:stopjack: as you would say.
But I gotta comment. Being irresponsible and getting someone pregnant or being pregnant doesn't harm innocent people. Big difference.
If you could drive drunk and the only one ever to get hurt/die was yourself I would say that it should be legal.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 03:02:51 PM
You guys helped convince me not to vote biden. Its a two way street. 2a rights are not the only thing that exist in the world or people care about. To get more people to respect 2a you have to accept their views on other things like climate change and abortion, etc.
Unless you're registered in another state (i.e. military, recent transplant, etc), then you'll be casting a vote that helps and hurts no candidate on the ballot.
Might as well not waste the paper your ballot was printed on. You should compost it and use it for fertilizer.
Not that you need any more organic fertilizer. Seems to be your stock in trade! :rofl:
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 03:03:52 PM
"I am trying to get everyone more accepting"
I tend to go by the written word that we have all agreed to.
Sorry if I can't find in our laws that WE voted on where
we have a right to kill kids. Maybe you can point that out to us?
Courts interpret law, they do not make it.
I'm sorry I'm not a very good liberal, but I'm a good
Libertarian.
The 14th Amendment circa 1868. Created before any of us was born. I would gladly like a new law spelling out your body your choice.
I'm not a good liberal either. I like guns, want strong immigration, low taxes, less social programs.
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 03:04:44 PM
Unless you're registered in another state (i.e. military, recent transplant, etc), then you'll be casting a vote that helps and hurts no candidate on the ballot.
Might as well not waste the paper your ballot was printed on. You should compost it and use it for fertilizer.
Not that you need any more organic fertilizer. Seems to be your stock in trade! :rofl:
I know we live Hawaii, so what are you growing a new tree on your ballot then?
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 03:06:00 PM
well you can drive home drunk in omnigun's utopia
If you drive drunk alone on a private road with no people. Sure, its your life. If you want to end it that's your choice, if you want to play Russian roulette go for it. As long as you don't hurt anyone else.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 03:06:58 PM
The 14th Amendment circa 1868. Created before any of us was born. I would gladly like a new law spelling out your body your choice.
I'm not a good liberal either. I like guns, want strong immigration, low taxes, less social programs.
"My body/my choice" used to justify the killing of a child extrapolates into the fact that the mother can kill her child at will.
If her child is a living being, then it's not "her body" alone. It is also the baby's body she is harming.
Can't escape reality.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 03:08:55 PM
I know we live Hawaii, so what are you growing a new tree on your ballot then?
I'm using it to vote in local races. The Presidential portion is superfluous.
Not surprised you didn't already know the correct answer to that question.
But, really.....you should not vote at all. Your judgement and values leave much to be desired.
Post by: macsak on October 12, 2020, 03:09:15 PM
You guys helped convince me not to vote biden. Its a two way street. 2a rights are not the only thing that exist in the world or people care about. To get more people to respect 2a you have to accept their views on other things like climate change and abortion, etc.
we accept your right to have other views, but we don't need to believe them...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 03:14:12 PM
If you drive drunk alone on a private road with no people. Sure, its your life. If you want to end it that's your choice, if you want to play Russian roulette go for it. As long as you don't hurt anyone else.
Being too drunk to drive may also indicate too drunk to decide.
Laws help protect the weakest in society. I believe someone who drank too much is vulnerable in many ways.
The law can help make sure the person doesn't wake up dead the next day.
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 04:39:58 PM
"My body/my choice" used to justify the killing of a child extrapolates into the fact that the mother can kill her child at will.
If her child is a living being, then it's not "her body" alone. It is also the baby's body she is harming.
Can't escape reality.
Can't force her to carry something she doesnt want feel free to take the cells out of her ovaries and grow it in the lab or implant it in someone willing. If you want to go in that direction.
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 04:42:32 PM
Being too drunk to drive may also indicate too drunk to decide.
Laws help protect the weakest in society. I believe someone who drank too much is vulnerable in many ways.
The law can help make sure the person doesn't wake up dead the next day.
It was the persons choice to get drunk. But I agree with you to an extent, but you can't force them to live or make good decisions.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 12, 2020, 04:57:10 PM
It was the persons choice to get drunk. But I agree with you to an extent, but you can't force them to live or make good decisions.What if someone was forced to get drunk like how someone can be forced to get pregnant (rape)? Is abortion ok?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 05:05:10 PM
Can't force her to carry something she doesnt want feel free to take the cells out of her ovaries and grow it in the lab or implant it in someone willing. If you want to go in that direction.
We force people to protect their children every single day through child protective services, the legal system, etc.
How is a mother "being forced" to carry her child to term any different than "forcing her" to provide proper food, clothing, a safe and healthy place to live, medical care as needed, vaccinations, etc, etc,etc.
You can't tell me that the intrusion by government to ensure the wellbeing of a child before birth is any more of a hardship on a parent than ensuring the wellbeing of the child after birth.
After birth, the child may be forcibly taken away from negligent mothers. Seems much more extreme than simply requiring that the mother give birth and then decide if the child will be put u for adoption.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 05:10:42 PM
It was the persons choice to get drunk. But I agree with you to an extent, but you can't force them to live or make good decisions.
"Force" them to make good decisions? Are you that stupid?
Someone who enters into a contract with a minor without parental consent can't have that contract enforced. Why?
Someone who shows up to a police station drunk or high can't be lawfully Mirandized. Why?
Someone who attends court under the influence can't be allowed to testify against themselves. Why?
Someone at a party who becomes extremely drunk/high is unable to give consent for sex and is considered a rape victim. Why?
"Force" them to make good decisions?
That would be funny if not for the seriousness of the implications.
Post by: macsak on October 12, 2020, 05:19:49 PM
"Force" them to make good decisions? Are you that stupid?
Someone who enters into a contract with a minor without parental consent can't have that contract enforced. Why?
Someone who shows up to a police station drunk or high can't be lawfully Mirandized. Why?
Someone who attends court under the influence can't be allowed to testify against themselves. Why?
Someone at a party who becomes extremely drunk/high is unable to give consent for sex and is considered a rape victim. Why?
"Force" them to make good decisions?
That would be funny if not for the seriousness of the implications.
he also wants to force all of us to change our opinions on certain subjects because of young people's feelings...
Post by: robtmc on October 12, 2020, 06:06:01 PM
Beginning to suspect mental issues..... :shake:
Or, was this some sort of challenge from the other kids?
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 07:24:53 PM
We force people to protect their children every single day through child protective services, the legal system, etc.
How is a mother "being forced" to carry her child to term any different than "forcing her" to provide proper food, clothing, a safe and healthy place to live, medical care as needed, vaccinations, etc, etc,etc.
You can't tell me that the intrusion by government to ensure the wellbeing of a child before birth is any more of a hardship on a parent than ensuring the wellbeing of the child after birth.
After birth, the child may be forcibly taken away from negligent mothers. Seems much more extreme than simply requiring that the mother give birth and then decide if the child will be put u for adoption.
I guess its because I don't believe its a child so, basically you are forcing a certain future on her both physically and mentally.
Once its an actual child then yes everything you said becomes true. Though technically she can give up the child. But she can't give "it" up before its born?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 09:19:39 PM
I guess its because I don't believe its a child so, basically you are forcing a certain future on her both physically and mentally.
Once its an actual child then yes everything you said becomes true. Though technically she can give up the child. But she can't give "it" up before its born?
It's statistically proven that a family with children provides stability, creates a happier home, and gives the adults a more focused perspective on their lives and careers. Regardless of economic situation, the addition of an infant is a net plus for the family. With friends, family members, churches, charities and gov't assistance, there really is no reason to argue that lack of surplus income is an impediment to having a child. How many parents have cleaned up their lives all for the sake of their children? It's not uncommon. I know many who did it -- "for the kids".
You keep making children sound like burdens. They are blessings to most families.
Well, your family being an obvious exception, of course. O0
Post by: ren on October 12, 2020, 09:21:37 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on October 12, 2020, 09:28:22 PM
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 10:20:01 PM
It's statistically proven that a family with children provides stability, creates a happier home, and gives the adults a more focused perspective on their lives and careers. Regardless of economic situation, the addition of an infant is a net plus for the family. With friends, family members, churches, charities and gov't assistance, there really is no reason to argue that lack of surplus income is an impediment to having a child. How many parents have cleaned up their lives all for the sake of their children? It's not uncommon. I know many who did it -- "for the kids".
You keep making children sound like burdens. They are blessings to most families.
Well, your family being an obvious exception, of course. O0
I believe you are partially correct. It can indeed go this way. I've seen both ways. When planned a child can be the best blessing of your life. When unplanned its a gamble. Not sure if I want to gamble a future humans well being. Its up to the person to decide if they are ready and willing. A stable happy family is key. A one night stand oopsy is unlikely to turn into that. If we had no abortion imagine how many of those would happen. All the poor kids.
Post by: omnigun on October 12, 2020, 10:23:12 PM
I am not pro-abortion, but I know what happens when it is not available. Black market and self-performed procedures resulting in lots of dead young women.
This is definitely an issue too.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 10:45:25 PM
I believe you are partially correct. It can indeed go this way. I've seen both ways. When planned a child can be the best blessing of your life. When unplanned its a gamble. Not sure if I want to gamble a future humans well being. Its up to the person to decide if they are ready and willing. A stable happy family is key. A one night stand oopsy is unlikely to turn into that. If we had no abortion imagine how many of those would happen. All the poor kids.
I have news, youthful forum member. More children are unplanned than planned.
Even those who use contraceptives can miss a dose, have a malfunction, or just be careless. Once is all it takes sometimes.
My wife was on the pill until we got married. Afterward, it took a year and a half to "succeed." We weren't trying to have a child, but neither were we avoiding it. We figured, let nature take its course, and if it happens, it'll be on its own schedule.
If people "planned" to have kids at the optimal time in their lives, they'll eventually be too old -- which happens to a lot of couples. You don't have to have the nice house, big savings account and be debt-free to start a family. The optimal life situation may never come. Plus, there's the "I'm not ready" mentality. Few parents ever are ready. It's a learn-as-you-go opportunity..
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 12, 2020, 10:49:43 PM
This is definitely an issue too.
Not as much as people pretend it is.
The nation will never totally ban abortions. If the states place limits and exceptions on abortions, it doesn't "ban" them. it just means you have to make that decision before you pass the first trimester or be within the exceptions.
I really don't see back alley abortions being a thing again. As for self-induced, that still goes on today, particularly when the woman is trying to hide an affair, was raped and/or is underage. Not the best frame of mind for making sound decisions.
Post by: oldfart on October 12, 2020, 11:05:15 PM
Common sense tells me that a lot of wonderful people and things might not exist if abortions were performed with reckless abandon.
Personal experience is even better. Let me relate this true story.
About 20 years ago a woman became pregnant with a girl.
The girl had a defective chromosome structure.
The doctors said the girl might be retarded and have medical problems.
The doctors offered to abort the baby.
The parents said no.
Today, that girl is an aspiring french pastry chef in college who has already created treats enjoyed by some notable local tv celebs and a few lucky members of our local gun community.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 01:52:48 AM
I formulate my opinions from personal experience and.common sense.
Common sense tells me that a lot of wonderful people and things might not exist if abortions were performed with reckless abandon.
Personal experience is even better. Let me relate this true story.
About 20 years ago a woman became pregnant with a girl.
The girl had a defective chromosome structure.
The doctors said the girl might be retarded and have medical problems.
The doctors offered to abort the baby.
The parents said no.
Today, that girl is an aspiring french pastry chef in college who has already created treats enjoyed by some notable local tv celebs and a few lucky members of our local gun community.
That's a very good example of why humans are not capable of playing God.
You don't have to believe in God. You just have to be intelligent enough to know that you are not God, and you have no way to know what the real cost of aborting a new life might be.
Name all the problems you want that MIGHT be associated with allowing these lives to exist. Then realize that those problems may actually be solved by those people. Those, and other more critical problems, are waiting for the next Edison, Einstein, Currie or DeVinci to solve them.
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 03:13:26 AM
That alone demonstrates you haven't read or retained what many of us here took much time and effort to post multiple times in response to your nonstop pro-abortion opinions.This is almost exactly what I agree with. And I also agree that most people will or do accept these limits and exceptions. It really shows the narrow mindedness of the OP to not include what most people think in his survey. For someone who keeps harping on things can’t be black and white, he keeps spewing only black and white opinions. He needs to open his eyes to the bigger picture. And this is a state issue not a federal issue.
To repeat myself and others, most people accept abortion decisions WITH limits and exceptions:
- limited to the first trimester, with the exceptions of:
- actual risk to the mother's life ... if carrying to term or birth threatens her life
- if the child was a result of rape
- if the child was a result of incest
(should not assume that rape or incest are always going to be acceptable as a single exception clause)
I strongly want to include "- if the parents are Liberal/Progressive/Socialist elitists", but I'll leave it at the above.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 03:42:34 AM
This is almost exactly what I agree with. And I also agree that most people will or do accept these limits and exceptions. It really shows the narrow mindedness of the OP to not include what most people think in his survey. For someone who keeps harping on things can’t be black and white, he keeps spewing only black and white opinions. He needs to open his eyes to the bigger picture. And this is a state issue not a federal issue.
Yep. People who want to enact legislation, but can't because their cause is not supported by the majority in their state, try to use the US Congress and Supreme Court to force states to do their bidding. That, in spite of the fact the feds have a pretty limited function. The states were given autonomy for the most part to let their residents live their lives according to their residents' wishes. I'm glad CA doesn't pass a law which in turn requires all other states to follow it.
That's exactly the effect of using the federal laws and courts to overstep their bounds and force every9one to march in step. That's not how this nation was set up. We're a collection of independent states under a federal system designed, above all else, to protect our rights and freedoms.
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 04:07:54 AM
Yep. People who want to enact legislation, but can't because their cause is not supported by the majority in their state, try to use the US Congress and Supreme Court to force states to do their bidding. That, in spite of the fact the feds have a pretty limited function. The states were given autonomy for the most part to let their residents live their lives according to their residents' wishes. I'm glad CA doesn't pass a law which in turn requires all other states to follow it.And BTW Omnigun, what Flapp just described is NOT freedom. If you have to try and use the courts to make laws and force the states to subscribe to those laws we lose our freedom. Unfortunately, you are too narrow minded to see that.
That's exactly the effect of using the federal laws and courts to overstep their bounds and force every9one to march in step. That's not how this nation was set up. We're a collection of independent states under a federal system designed, above all else, to protect our rights and freedoms.
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 04:11:52 AM
If fetuses are not alive, then how can Planned Parenthood sell LIVE body parts from aborted fetuses? Also, how can scientists use LIVE stem cells from aborted fetuses if they are not alive?
Please provide a comprehensive answer. I would like to hear how ABORTED fetuses are not alive yet they are alive enough to be used for creating and growing other life?
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 06:07:17 AM
I have news, youthful forum member. More children are unplanned than planned.
Even those who use contraceptives can miss a dose, have a malfunction, or just be careless. Once is all it takes sometimes.
My wife was on the pill until we got married. Afterward, it took a year and a half to "succeed." We weren't trying to have a child, but neither were we avoiding it. We figured, let nature take its course, and if it happens, it'll be on its own schedule.
If people "planned" to have kids at the optimal time in their lives, they'll eventually be too old -- which happens to a lot of couples. You don't have to have the nice house, big savings account and be debt-free to start a family. The optimal life situation may never come. Plus, there's the "I'm not ready" mentality. Few parents ever are ready. It's a learn-as-you-go opportunity..
I'm not talking about those types of unplanned. I'm talking about people getting pregnant when they don't want to at all. Like a fling, one night stand. Meet a girl at a party/club/tinder. Those happen all the time. Or teen pregnancy. Or prostitution or drugs. The chances of a happy family unit and a child having a positive family experience are slim. Many of those cases the child suffers.
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 06:19:14 AM
I have a question for the scientific Omnigun.
If fetuses are not alive, then how can Planned Parenthood sell LIVE body parts from aborted fetuses? Also, how can scientists use LIVE stem cells from aborted fetuses if they are not alive?
Please provide a comprehensive answer. I would like to hear how ABORTED fetuses are not alive yet they are alive enough to be used for creating and growing other life?
https://oversight.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fiction
I believe human life needs consciousness to be alive. Simple as that. If not it's simply a body, much like donating organs after death. Those organs are "alive" but the person isn't. They can be used to benefit many people. Stem cells have wonderful positive possibilities for humanity and I encourage the scientific advances made possible. Including drugs like the one that saved Trump from covid. Advance humanity forward through science and one day we might cure cancer, aging and many negative aspects of human life.
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 06:24:01 AM
https://oversight.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fictionIf something needs consciousness to be alive then I guess trees are not alive. Nor are bugs or plants of any kind? So now you are saying life is dead? And people in comas cannot be alive then either since that is the only thing someone needs to have in order to be alive?
I believe human life needs consciousness to be alive. Simple as that. If not it's simply a body, much like donating organs after death. Those organs are "alive" but the person isn't. They can be used to benefit many people. Stem cells have wonderful positive possibilities for humanity and I encourage the scientific advances made possible. Including drugs like the one that saved Trump from covid. Advance humanity forward through science and one day we might cure cancer, aging and many negative aspects of human life.
Explain how you can have it both ways.
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 06:30:13 AM
If something needs consciousness to be alive then I guess trees are not alive. Nor are bugs or plants of any kind? So now you are saying life is dead? And people in comas cannot be alive then either since that is the only thing someone needs to have in order to be alive?
Explain how you can have it both ways.
Trees are not alive in the sense cutting them down not is murder. Nor is killing a chicken murder. They are alive but not human level alive. Humans are a higher level of life. It's made hard to explain this as there's no exact term that i know of for the uniqueness of human life. We are the only creatures on earth with human consciousness.
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 06:41:17 AM
Trees are not alive in the sense cutting them down not is murder. Nor is killing a chicken murder. They are alive but not human level alive. Humans are a higher level of life. It's made hard to explain this as there's no exact term that i know of for the uniqueness of human life. We are the only creatures on earth with human consciousness.You are ignoring the coma question. Answer it.
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 06:43:23 AM
You are ignoring the coma question. Answer it.
People in comas who are brain dead are alive physically but not human level alive. They are like unborn fetuses.
Same reason doctors are not charged with murder when they take someone off life support.
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 06:49:36 AM
People in comas who are brain dead are alive physically but not human level alive. They are like unborn fetuses.Bullshit. People are put into medical comas all the time. They are not brain dead. But they are unconscious which according to you makes them dead. People who are unconscious are not brain dead. They are alive and are not conscious. According to you people who are unconscious are not alive.. Guess when I got knocked out at work a couple of times I died. That is according to you.
Same reason doctors are not charged with murder when they take someone off life support.
Do you know how stupid you sound right now?
Post by: oldfart on October 13, 2020, 06:58:23 AM
Trees are not alive in the sense cutting them down not is murder. Nor is killing a chicken murder. They are alive but not human level alive. Humans are a higher level of life. It's made hard to explain this as there's no exact term that i know of for the uniqueness of human life. We are the only creatures on earth with human consciousness.==========
my doggy has more human consciousness than some humans I know :rofl:
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 07:01:22 AM
==========:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
my doggy has more human consciousness than some humans I know :rofl:
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 08:15:05 AM
Bullshit. People are put into medical comas all the time. They are not brain dead. But they are unconscious which according to you makes them dead. People who are unconscious are not brain dead. They are alive and are not conscious. According to you people who are unconscious are not alive.. Guess when I got knocked out at work a couple of times I died. That is according to you.
Do you know how stupid you sound right now?
There's a difference between medically induced and brain dead....You don't die when you sleep. Fetuses have no functioning brains. Braindead people have no functioning brains. If you were put under anesthesia you have a functioning brain still. Its fairly simple concept.
Do you have a functioning brain/consciousness?
-> yes -> you are human level alive
-> no -> you are not human level alive
Anesthesia, getting knocked out, sleeping, all these things your brain is still functioning and you still have human consciousness.
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 08:29:59 AM
There's a difference between medically induced and brain dead....You don't die when you sleep. Fetuses have no functioning brains. Braindead people have no functioning brains. If you were put under anesthesia you have a functioning brain still. Its fairly simple concept.So are so full of shit. You said:
Do you have a functioning brain/consciousness?
-> yes -> you are human level alive
-> no -> you are not human level alive
Anesthesia, getting knocked out, sleeping, all these things your brain is still functioning and you still have human consciousness.
I believe human life needs consciousness to be alive. Simple as that. (SNIP)
So now you are back peddling. Spewing more crap as you go along. So now I caught you with your own words. It is not as simple as that, is it? Admit it. Now you have to qualify what you say because you said something wrong the first time. So which is it? Simple as that? Or more BULLSHIT. Stop dude. You are just digging your hole even deeper.
Here is something for you to ponder liar:
Definition of unconsciousness:
the state of being unconscious.
"someone gave me a crack across the head and I slipped into unconsciousness"
Based on your simple words the person who is unconscious is dead. Now you say he’s not. Which time did you lie? The first time or the second time? IDIOT! Do you really think someone is going to believe you now that you are back pedaling and having to take back what you said? You have no credibility now. Actually you didn’t have any before. Just stop dude.
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 08:33:57 AM
So are so full of shit. You said:
So now you are back peddling. Spewing more crap as you go along. So now I caught you with your own words. It is not as simple as that, is it? Admit it. Now you have to qualify what you say because you said something wrong the first time. So which is it? Simple as that? Or more BULLSHIT. Stop dude. You are just digging your hole even deeper.
Here is something for you to ponder liar:
Definition of unconsciousness:
the state of being unconscious.
"someone gave me a crack across the head and I slipped into unconsciousness"
Based on your simple words the person who is unconscious is dead. Now you say he’s not. Which time did you lie? The first time or the second time? IDIOT! Do you really think someone is going to believe you now that you are back pedaling and having to take back what you said? You have no credibility now. Actually you didn’t have any before. Just stop dude.
I guess a less misunderstanding term is sentience. You need human sentience to be alive. That was my fault, I relate human consciousness with sentience. I am not back peddling, never did. I may have used a misunderstood term and for that I apologize.
Its difficult because there isn't a one word term for what it means to be human. Sentience is guess is a better term. I will use this term from now on.
Fetuses are not sentient
Braindead coma patients are not sentient
sleeping people, knocked out people, etc are sentient
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 08:43:40 AM
I guess a less misunderstanding term is sentience. You need human sentience to be alive. That was my fault, I relate human consciousness with sentience. I am not back peddling, never did. I may have used a misunderstood term and for that I apologize.You said “Simple as that”. No one here misunderstood it but you. You are trying to back peddle on your back peddling and then you lie about back peddling. Dude just stop before you can’t dig your way out any more. Whoops, too late! :rofl:
Its difficult because there isn't a one word term for what it means to be human. Sentience is guess is a better term. I will use this term from now on.
Fetuses are not sentient
Braindead coma patients are not sentient
sleeping people, knocked out people, etc are sentient
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 09:10:50 AM
You said “Simple as that”. No one here misunderstood it but you. You are trying to back peddle on your back peddling and then you lie about back peddling. Dude just stop before you can’t dig your way out any more. Whoops, too late! :rofl:
If replace "human consciousness" with human sentience. My point still stands 100% valid. Don't end up like flapp and make arguments solely on Ad hominem arguments. Just because a term that was not understood by everyone equally used does not mean the argument is moot. If a correction to a definition agreed upon by the masses is made and everyone has an understanding the substance of the facts remain. There is no single term to describe the uniqueness of human thought and humanism. What's makes us unique from all other creatures. Sentience, human consciousness, human awareness, human intelligence. All things unique to living humans. Not fetuses or brain dead bodies.
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 10:00:53 AM
If replace "human consciousness" with human sentience. My point still stands 100% valid. Don't end up like flapp and make arguments solely on Ad hominem arguments. Just because a term that was not understood by everyone equally used does not mean the argument is moot. If a correction to a definition agreed upon by the masses is made and everyone has an understanding the substance of the facts remain. There is no single term to describe the uniqueness of human thought and humanism. What's makes us unique from all other creatures. Sentience, human consciousness, human awareness, human intelligence. All things unique to living humans. Not fetuses or brain dead bodies.You just keep digging dude. Back peddling is not a good trait to have. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: Brystont1 on October 13, 2020, 10:43:54 AM
There's a difference between medically induced and brain dead....You don't die when you sleep. Fetuses have no functioning brains. Braindead people have no functioning brains. If you were put under anesthesia you have a functioning brain still. Its fairly simple concept.
Do you have a functioning brain/consciousness?
-> yes -> you are human level alive
-> no -> you are not human level alive
Anesthesia, getting knocked out, sleeping, all these things your brain is still functioning and you still have human consciousness.
What if you were brain dead but by some miracle we knew they’d regain their cognitive functions in about 9 months ( ;) )
Post by: robtmc on October 13, 2020, 10:50:24 AM
You just keep digging dude. Back peddling is not a good trait to have.Hey! It takes time to google up argument opinions. His iFag coverage may be spotty.
The more I see y'all dealing with this clown, the more I suspect it is female, what with he endless arguing and intense interest in abortions.
And the desperation to get the last word in, it appears. Thankfully I was told about that ignore function on this site.
Post by: ren on October 13, 2020, 11:12:20 AM
Hey! It takes time to google up argument opinions. His iFag coverage may be spotty.
The more I see y'all dealing with this clown, the more I suspect it is female, what with he endless arguing and intense interest in abortions.
And the desperation to get the last word in, it appears. Thankfully I was told about that ignore function on this site.
killing me Smalls with the iFag references :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 11:21:58 AM
Hey! It takes time to google up argument opinions. His iFag coverage may be spotty.:rofl:
The more I see y'all dealing with this clown, the more I suspect it is female, what with he endless arguing and intense interest in abortions.
And the desperation to get the last word in, it appears. Thankfully I was told about that ignore function on this site.
I think the ignore function is in order for this one as well. The more I see it lie and then try to cover up the lies with more lies I get tired dealing with it. Especially since it is apparently too narrow minded to realize it. Just keep letting it dig it’s hole it will eventually not be able to get out.
Post by: Jl808 on October 13, 2020, 01:46:24 PM
Last night I was sitting in the living room, talking to my wife about life.. In between, we talked about the idea of living or dying. I told her : 'Never let me live in a vegetative state, totally dependent on machines and liquids from a bottle. If you see me in that state I want you to disconnect all the connections that are keeping me alive, I'd much rather die.'
My wife got up from her seat with a look of admiration towards me and proceeded to disconnect the Cable tv, DVD, the Computer, the Cell Phone, the iPod, and the Xbox, and went to the bar and threw away all my whisky, Gin, Vodka the Beer from the fridge...
I ALMOST DIED!!
Think before you speak. The female brain works on a different wavelength!
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 01:54:28 PM
I'm not talking about those types of unplanned. I'm talking about people getting pregnant when they don't want to at all. Like a fling, one night stand. Meet a girl at a party/club/tinder. Those happen all the time. Or teen pregnancy. Or prostitution or drugs. The chances of a happy family unit and a child having a positive family experience are slim. Many of those cases the child suffers.
Those things happen much less frequently when people understand there are potential consequences that may not be erased in a clinic.
Take away the negative results, and behaviors shift toward that act.
You pretend humans are slaves to their desires.
Must suck to live in your reality.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 02:01:46 PM
People in comas who are brain dead are alive physically but not human level alive. They are like unborn fetuses.
Same reason doctors are not charged with murder when they take someone off life support.
How can you even think this is a valid comparison?
Removing life support is WITHHOLDING medical treatment, not directly killing the patient. They are only allowing the patient to succumb to natural causes.
In an abortion, the treatment itself involves actively killing the fetus. If you let nature take its course, just like you did in removing life support, in all likelihood the baby will be born.
There's no comparison. Your analogy is equivalent to saying watching a person drown is the same as shooting them in the head.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 02:10:20 PM
If replace "human consciousness" with human sentience. My point still stands 100% valid. Don't end up like flapp and make arguments solely on Ad hominem arguments. Just because a term that was not understood by everyone equally used does not mean the argument is moot. If a correction to a definition agreed upon by the masses is made and everyone has an understanding the substance of the facts remain. There is no single term to describe the uniqueness of human thought and humanism. What's makes us unique from all other creatures. Sentience, human consciousness, human awareness, human intelligence. All things unique to living humans. Not fetuses or brain dead bodies.
"Sentience" and "Consciousness" are synonyms.
Do you even read what you write? Better yet, do you comprehend what you write?
I notice you only Google things to use as sources, but you neglect to Google words to make sure you understand them.
It's not just that you don't know, it's that what you think you know is wrong.
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 02:45:02 PM
What if you were brain dead but by some miracle we knew they’d regain their cognitive functions in about 9 months ( ;) )
Lol can't predict the future and shouldn't judge the present by the future. Your sperm is one sex away from making a baby. Don't make all your sperm babies.
The current present state the fetus lacks sentience. Just like the present state of your splunk.
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 02:46:45 PM
"Sentience" and "Consciousness" are synonyms.
Do you even read what you write? Better yet, do you comprehend what you write?
I notice you only Google things to use as sources, but you neglect to Google words to make sure you understand them.
It's not just that you don't know, it's that what you think you know is wrong.
I kept getting called out for using the term conscious because you can lose that getting knocked out apparently. Sentience is more permanent. There's no perfect word to describe human self awariness, intellect and life.
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 02:49:11 PM
How can you even think this is a valid comparison?
Removing life support is WITHHOLDING medical treatment, not directly killing the patient. They are only allowing the patient to succumb to natural causes.
In an abortion, the treatment itself involves actively killing the fetus. If you let nature take its course, just like you did in removing life support, in all likelihood the baby will be born.
There's no comparison. Your analogy is equivalent to saying watching a person drown is the same as shooting them in the head.
Incorrect that's semantics. Do you advocate the removal of fetuses then watching them die naturally outside the womb? They both can't live without a machine or womb.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 02:56:34 PM
Incorrect that's semantics. Do you advocate the removal of fetuses then watching them die naturally outside the womb? They both can't live without a machine or womb.
Don't ask me a single question until you explain why my comment is "incorrect" and only "semantics".
You're the one quibbling over "consciousness" vs "sentient". Don't lecture me on "semantics".
(https://i.imgur.com/PpCsX2F.png)
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 02:57:36 PM
Those things happen much less frequently when people understand there are potential consequences that may not be erased in a clinic.
Take away the negative results, and behaviors shift toward that act.
You pretend humans are slaves to their desires.
Must suck to live in your reality.
I know you probably don't deal with much younger people. But I can say in highschool and college that happened plenty. Not sure why you find it your place to police someone else's sexual choices. It's none of your business. People should be free to make their own choices, learn from mistakes and grow. A young persons mistakes shouldn't harm them and others for life if it can be prevented medically. Purposely limiting access to Healthcare to achieve your goals is wrong. Let young adults young adult. Embrace their freedom.
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 02:59:34 PM
Don't ask me a single question until you explain why my comment is "incorrect" and only "semantics".
You're the one quibbling over "consciousness" vs "sentient". Don't lecture me on "semantics".
(https://i.imgur.com/PpCsX2F.png)
Inspector is the one pointing out conscious used in the way i used it can mean just a person being awake. I simply using a term that transcends being physically conscious. It's a bunch of word spaghetti to avoid the actual meaning and substance.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 03:02:40 PM
I know you probably don't deal with much younger people. But I can say in highschool and college that happened plenty. Not sure why you find it your place to police someone else's sexual choices. It's none of your business. People should be free to make their own choices, learn from mistakes and grow. A young persons mistakes shouldn't harm them and others for life if it can be prevented medically. Purposely limiting access to Healthcare to achieve your goals is wrong. Let young adults young adult. Embrace their freedom.
Yeah. I never interact with "younger people."
I only have nieces, nephews, daughters, a granddaughter, STEM students, kids I tutor, Girl Scouts, kids of friends.....
You're pathetic to assume anything like this.
Guess what? More high schoolers are choosing abstinence because they see the disease, unwanted pregnancies, emotional damage and relationship problems having an abortion causes.
Show me the stats that support "But I can say in highschool and college that happened plenty.". How do you define "plenty?" Same way you "just know" that all Republicans are against more government spending?
Post by: Brystont1 on October 13, 2020, 03:04:02 PM
Lol can't predict the future and shouldn't judge the present by the future. Your sperm is one sex away from making a baby. Don't make all your sperm babies.
The current present state the fetus lacks sentience. Just like the present state of your splunk.
I’m saying that if you get into a car crash and the doctor say as of right now you are brain dead but you will recover in 9 months should they be able to pull the plug on you?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 03:05:47 PM
Inspector is the one pointing out conscious used in the way i used it can mean just a person being awake. I simply using a term that transcends being physically conscious. It's a bunch of word spaghetti to avoid the actual meaning and substance.
The point is, YOU are the one arguing about semantics. He called you out on one term as being wrong, and you deflected by substituting a synonym.
Pure semantics. "That word wasn't optimal. This one better supports my position."
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: They mean the same thing! :wacko:
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 03:07:33 PM
Yeah. I never interact with "younger people."
I only have nieces, nephews, daughters, a granddaughter, STEM students, kids I tutor, Girl Scouts, kids of friends.....
You're pathetic to assume anything like this.
Guess what? More high schoolers are choosing abstinence because they see the disease, unwanted pregnancies, emotional damage and relationship problems having an abortion causes.
Show me the stats that support "But I can say in highschool and college that happened plenty.". How do you define "plenty?" Same way you "just know" that all Republicans are against more government spending?
Just like you I can only go by experience. Mine and people i know. Not sure if you can find accurate studies on this. I guess it was incorrect for either of us to assume. We probably have different experiences.
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 03:08:01 PM
Don't ask me a single question until you explain why my comment is "incorrect" and only "semantics".Don’t forget this guy has already lied through his teeth about “consciousness simple as that”. Lying and back peddling now. And then he lied saying he wasn’t back peddling when that is all he has done since I nailed that fucker to the wall. Look where he is now... :rofl:
You're the one quibbling over "consciousness" vs "sentient". Don't lecture me on "semantics".
(https://i.imgur.com/PpCsX2F.png)
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 03:09:38 PM
I’m saying that if you get into a car crash and the doctor say as of right now you are brain dead but you will recover in 9 months should they be able to pull the plug on you?
That's a paradox. Because that implies I'm not brain dead. Which means I have sentience. If I was brain dead I would never recover.
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 03:11:53 PM
The point is, YOU are the one arguing about semantics. He called you out on one term as being wrong, and you deflected by substituting a synonym.
Pure semantics. "That word wasn't optimal. This one better supports my position."
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: They mean the same thing! :wacko:
Synonyms isn't the exact same thing. It's related. Are you saying you lose sentience when you go to sleep? I'm just trying to find a term to use if you think you are all that please suggest a replacement. To show the unique human mind. What do you call it? Being self aware, intelligent, unique human traits that only we have.
Post by: drck1000 on October 13, 2020, 03:13:40 PM
M
F
G
:bangingheadonwall:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 03:16:30 PM
Don’t forget this guy has already lied through his teeth about “consciousness simple as that”. Lying and back peddling now. And then he lied saying he wasn’t back peddling when that is all he has done since I nailed that fucker to the wall. Look where he is now... :rofl:
He seems to take this very personally, even though he's not personally involved in the process of abortions.
I'm starting to think this whole topic is his way of justifying his own existence. I really wonder if he was "planned," Did his father tell him he tried to talk Omni's mother into an abortion, but they couldn't afford it? But for a few hundred bucks (or free Obamacare), this thread -- like the OP -- would not even exist!
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 03:20:54 PM
Synonyms isn't the exact same thing. It's related. Are you saying you lose sentience when you go to sleep? I'm just trying to find a term to use if you think you are all that please suggest a replacement. To show the unique human mind. What do you call it? Being self aware, intelligent, unique human traits that only we have.
I said, don't ask me a single question until (unless) you've answered mine.
Where does it say synonym "isn't the exact same thing -- it's related"??
(https://i.imgur.com/UOhbrZb.png)
Post by: ren on October 13, 2020, 03:24:37 PM
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 03:40:04 PM
That's a paradox. Because that implies I'm not brain dead. Which means I have sentience. If I was brain dead I would never recover.Dude, I hate to break the news to you. YOU ARE BRAIN DEAD!! :rofl:
Post by: Inspector on October 13, 2020, 03:41:36 PM
OCan I help? :rofl:
M
F
G
:bangingheadonwall:
Post by: drck1000 on October 13, 2020, 03:41:48 PM
Dude, I hate to break the news to you. YOU ARE BRAIN DEAD!! :rofl:As my uncle used to tell me all the time,
"eh braddah, you stay dame bramage" :crazy:
:rofl:
Post by: drck1000 on October 13, 2020, 03:47:02 PM
Can I help? :rofl:No. I already have to deal with going shopping for a new fridge. Dealing with appliance sale people has similar effect on me.
Me: I need a refridgerator that fits these dimensions. (I give him width and height, but I already know which models will fit).
Salesperson: We have these X, Y, and Z models in stock and on sale. (I already know they won't fit)
Me: Those don't meet the dimensions that I am limited to.
Salesperson: But here, check the awesome features out on this model X.
Me: What is the overall height of the unit?
Salesperson: 67" (which is too tall)
Me: I told you that I need one in these max dimensions. . .
Salesperson: Ohh, I didn't know you had a height limitation. . .
:facepalm:
Post by: robtmc on October 13, 2020, 03:57:30 PM
I notice you only Google things to use as sources,
What else has he/she got?
Shirley you do not expect life experience or education?
Must make up by using someone else's knowledge.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 03:58:41 PM
No. I already have to deal with going shopping for a new fridge. Dealing with appliance sale people has similar effect on me.
Me: I need a refridgerator that fits these dimensions. (I give him width and height, but I already know which models will fit).
Salesperson: We have these X, Y, and Z models in stock and on sale. (I already know they won't fit)
Me: Those don't meet the dimensions that I am limited to.
Salesperson: But here, check the awesome features out on this model X.
Me: What is the overall height of the unit?
Salesperson: 67" (which is too tall)
Me: I told you that I need one in these max dimensions. . .
Salesperson: Ohh, I didn't know you had a height limitation. . .
:facepalm:
Dimensions ..... height limitations .....
just semantics. :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 04:00:21 PM
What else has he/she got?
Shirley you do not expect life experience or education?
Must make up by using someone else's knowledge.
"Life experience" & "education" are synonyms ...
... and don't call me Shirley! :geekdanc:
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 05:03:43 PM
Post by: drck1000 on October 13, 2020, 05:47:23 PM
What else has he/she got?Shirley you don’t meen that...
Shirley you do not expect life experience or education?
Must make up by using someone else's knowledge.
:rofl:
Post by: Brystont1 on October 13, 2020, 06:49:31 PM
That's a paradox. Because that implies I'm not brain dead. Which means I have sentience. If I was brain dead I would never recover.
Lol that’s exactly my point. How could something be “not sentient” if they would one day become “sentient.”
Post by: robtmc on October 13, 2020, 07:47:08 PM
Dimensions ..... height limitations .....But, numbers,
just semantics. :rofl: :rofl:
Math is HARD dude!
Now, if you had wanted to talk about colors..............
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 08:07:04 PM
Lol that’s exactly my point. How could something be “not sentient” if they would one day become “sentient.”
Idk I tend to think of this in the present. And sentient is something once you have you have it till you die. But something like a fetus does not have it yet. Until its developed enough. If I am sentient, I get brain damage I lose that. There's no amount of time to get it back, aka I am dead.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 09:10:38 PM
Idk I tend to think of this in the present. And sentient is something once you have you have it till you die. But something like a fetus does not have it yet. Until its developed enough. If I am sentient, I get brain damage I lose that. There's no amount of time to get it back, aka I am dead.
Do you even get what you are saying and why it's so unscientific?
There's a reason there are "Heartbeat" laws for abortions. You have no way of knowing if there is even the tiniest spark of sentience in a developing fetus. There's no scientific test for that. But, once a heartbeat is detected, you know beyond any doubt that the brain has developed to a point in which autonomic functions are being controlled. It would be logical to most (not you) that such a level of development could actually indicate sentience has already been attained, or is not far off.
WTF do you want? OB/GYNs administering a Turing Test to babies in the womb?
:wacko:
Post by: omnigun on October 13, 2020, 10:20:17 PM
Do you even get what you are saying and why it's so unscientific?
There's a reason there are "Heartbeat" laws for abortions. You have no way of knowing if there is even the tiniest spark of sentience in a developing fetus. There's no scientific test for that. But, once a heartbeat is detected, you know beyond any doubt that the brain has developed to a point in which autonomic functions are being controlled. It would be logical to most (not you) that such a level of development could actually indicate sentience has already been attained, or is not far off.
WTF do you want? OB/GYNs administering a Turing Test to babies in the womb?
:wacko:
Is true you can't tell when. But what we can scientificly say is a complex brain is needed. That's why all other creatures haven't gained sentience. A 2 month fetus just isn't advanced enough.
Post by: Jl808 on October 13, 2020, 10:45:59 PM
Here, watch this. (Warning, graphic video)
https://youtu.be/chf5GFSukxM
Post by: Brystont1 on October 13, 2020, 10:51:24 PM
Idk I tend to think of this in the present. And sentient is something once you have you have it till you die. But something like a fetus does not have it yet. Until its developed enough. If I am sentient, I get brain damage I lose that. There's no amount of time to get it back, aka I am dead.
I’m sorry brother but I think I got you here. Your logic is all over the place on this one.
Your the one who set your definition by stating you cannot be dead if you could gain your sentience back. Therefore, by your logic, You cannot say a fetus no matter how old they are is non sentient. A fetus cannot be on the same level as a brain dead person by your own logic.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 13, 2020, 11:58:57 PM
Is true you can't tell when. But what we can scientificly say is a complex brain is needed. That's why all other creatures haven't gained sentience. A 2 month fetus just isn't advanced enough.
Climate Change activists: "Even if we can't measure what portion of carbon emissions is manmade, It's better to be safe than sorry."
Same Leftist Activists: "Even if we don't know when a fetus attains sentience, it's better to preserve the rights of women to abort the fetus than worry about something as insignificant as murder."
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 06:05:52 AM
Climate Change activists: "Even if we can't measure what portion of carbon emissions is manmade, It's better to be safe than sorry."
Same Leftist Activists: "Even if we don't know when a fetus attains sentience, it's better to preserve the rights of women to abort the fetus than worry about something as insignificant as murder."
Climate change affects us all. We know forsure we are affecting the climate and potentially dooming the entire world. And I would argue it's a matter of rights. Adult fully formed humans have more rights than fetuses. Just like you said before some murder is justified. Even though I don't believe this is murder, you said you can value life differently. You should understand that.
It's like climate change we are sure we are affecting the climate we know roughly how and act. Abortion we are sure it's not human sentient, we don't know exactly when but because of how it physically is a un complex brain is not capable.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 06:09:02 AM
I’m sorry brother but I think I got you here. Your logic is all over the place on this one.
Your the one who set your definition by stating you cannot be dead if you could gain your sentience back. Therefore, by your logic, You cannot say a fetus no matter how old they are is non sentient. A fetus cannot be on the same level as a brain dead person by your own logic.
Hmmm i see the logic in your argument. Perhaps the fetus is above a brain dead person but below a regular human. Still a lower form though. It's not human but has the potential. But potential isn't enough to grant it status as a human.
I have the potential to be a billionaire. But I am not one. I can't go to the bank and expect the bank to give me a loan to buy a jet because of my potential. You are judged at what you are currently.
Post by: macsak on October 14, 2020, 07:13:48 AM
Climate change affects us all. We know forsure we are affecting the climate and potentially dooming the entire world. And I would argue it's a matter of rights. Adult fully formed humans have more rights than fetuses. Just like you said before some murder is justified. Even though I don't believe this is murder, you said you can value life differently. You should understand that.
It's like climate change we are sure we are affecting the climate we know roughly how and act. Abortion we are sure it's not human sentient, we don't know exactly when but because of how it physically is a un complex brain is not capable.
where's that jacky chan picture when you need it?
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 07:57:55 AM
I’m sorry brother but I think I got you here. Your logic is all over the place on this one.Key statement, or assumption right there.
Your the one who set your definition by stating you cannot be dead if you could gain your sentience back. Therefore, by your logic, You cannot say a fetus no matter how old they are is non sentient. A fetus cannot be on the same level as a brain dead person by your own logic.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 08:23:40 AM
liberal gun owners....
Post by: macsak on October 14, 2020, 08:54:57 AM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/17e13eb07f2b3f046ae5c80dad65648a/tenor.gif?itemid=5480485)
liberal gun owners....
well, he did have a 3 something gpa at a known local private school...
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 09:09:37 AM
well, he did have a 3 something gpa at a known local private school...Well, shit. We just better take his beliefs as truths then. They are self evident.
"I have spoken"
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 09:15:50 AM
Dimensions ..... height limitations .....Semantics? How about common sense?
just semantics. :rofl: :rofl:
I was looking for book shelves a couple of months ago. Was searching online and reading reviews to see how a given shelf is, particularly how easy or difficult it is to assemble. I found this book shelf I really liked and available locally, but the reviews on how difficult it was and how long it took made me take a pause. People were saying stuff like "no directions", "can't figure it out", etc. Anyways, there were also a number of positive reviews, but without mention of easy of assembly. I ended up buying two.
Got them home and yeah, the directions are minimum. However, with just a LITTLE bit of common sense, it was pretty easy to figure out how to assemble. Yeah, better directions probably could have made it easier, but I had zero issues assembling them. I think people have become so used to people telling them exactly what to do that they have lost the ability to think for themselves and figure things out.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 10:45:45 AM
Hmmm i see the logic in your argument. Perhaps the fetus is above a brain dead person but below a regular human. Still a lower form though. It's not human but has the potential. But potential isn't enough to grant it status as a human.
I have the potential to be a billionaire. But I am not one. I can't go to the bank and expect the bank to give me a loan to buy a jet because of my potential. You are judged at what you are currently.
This is what people on both sides have been trying to figure out. At what stage of development in what's inside the woman able to think?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 10:47:20 AM
Climate change affects us all. We know forsure we are affecting the climate and potentially dooming the entire world. And I would argue it's a matter of rights. Adult fully formed humans have more rights than fetuses. Just like you said before some murder is justified. Even though I don't believe this is murder, you said you can value life differently. You should understand that.
It's like climate change we are sure we are affecting the climate we know roughly how and act. Abortion we are sure it's not human sentient, we don't know exactly when but because of how it physically is a un complex brain is not capable.
Sanctioning the murder of the unborn through a judicial misapplication of the Constitution affects us all.
It's not whether man is "affecting the climate". It's to what degree, and whether ANYTHING we can do will make an impact on the overall carbon content of the atmosphere. There's no scientific evidence for whether man contributes X percentage of carbon emissions vs. nature's contributions. The general consensus is about 10-15% of it comes from man.
People blaming climate change for the wildfires are ridiculously stupid. They are also so dense they can't see that the fires are contributing to climate change. So warped is their perspective.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 10:49:23 AM
Climate change affects us all. We know forsure we are affecting the climate and potentially dooming the entire world. And I would argue it's a matter of rights. Adult fully formed humans have more rights than fetuses. Just like you said before some murder is justified. Even though I don't believe this is murder, you said you can value life differently. You should understand that.
It's like climate change we are sure we are affecting the climate we know roughly how and act. Abortion we are sure it's not human sentient, we don't know exactly when but because of how it physically is a un complex brain is not capable.
You're right, it affects us all. Now I have to listen to people who think they know what's going to happen in 100 years, listen to a child lecture one of the lowest polluters in the world on how they have to be more eco friendly. I have to now live in a possibility that my gas car will be gone or highly taxed (HI rep did try to push a bill Ohno?).
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 10:54:47 AM
This is what people on both sides have been trying to figure out. At what stage of development in what's inside the woman able to think?When is that going to happen for you? :P
:rofl:
:kidding:
:geekdanc:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 10:55:10 AM
But, we should not worry about killing a potential human being who is not sentient today, even though they likely will be in another few weeks.
Makes perfect sense. The future only matters when HE decides it does.
Post by: Brystont1 on October 14, 2020, 11:33:36 AM
Hmmm i see the logic in your argument. Perhaps the fetus is above a brain dead person but below a regular human. Still a lower form though. It's not human but has the potential. But potential isn't enough to grant it status as a human.
I have the potential to be a billionaire. But I am not one. I can't go to the bank and expect the bank to give me a loan to buy a jet because of my potential. You are judged at what you are currently.
But if you knew you were 100% going to be a billionaire that changes things doesn’t it?
Also give me an example of someone that is not brain dead but is not considered to have human rights? As you said you’d put a fetus above a brain dead person but below a “human”
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 11:40:49 AM
So, according to OmniGrub, we need to address Climate Change today, or face the consequences in 12, 25, 50, 100 or some other unknowable future date many years from now.
But, we should not worry about killing a potential human being who is not sentient today, even though they likely will be in another few weeks.
Makes perfect sense. The future only matters when HE decides it does.
One is easily fixable and one isn't. Can have kids whenever, we only got 1 earth.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 11:41:40 AM
But if you knew you were 100% going to be a billionaire that changes things doesn’t it?
Also give me an example of someone that is not brain dead but is not considered to have human rights? As you said you’d put a fetus above a brain dead person but below a “human”
Criminals, have less rights than non criminals. We execute prisoners. Are you against the death penalty?
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 11:42:54 AM
What do you do to help reduce pollution that climate change is from?
1) Do you walk, bike, group transport 100% of your life
2) Do you own any electronic devices that contribute to someone digging in the earth for materials
3) Are any of your clothes made in factories that cause high pollution (made in china type stuff)
4) Do you consume anything bottled
5) If you ever leave Oahu, do you use a sail boat and not anything run on fossil fuels
6) Do you not own anything metal or lead based, since its also bad for the environment (guns, ammo, ammo can, knives, etc...)
7) Have you contacted your DC rep about climate change and any international agencies
See where I'm going with this? So if you feel climate change is a big deal, then then answer should be no to most of the above, and so should anyone else who feels the same way about climate change. If all these people did their part, then that solves part of the problem right?
I know a guy who became super into climate change and lives in OR. He and his gf do not use anything that runs on gas. He knits his/her own clothing, last I heard he was trying to learn how to make his own yarn/string from sheep sheers. They are vegans because animal factories are bad. Attend protest all the time and write to their senators about climate change. They moved to OR so they can do more compared to being here separated by an ocean. TBH, I'm pretty sure they're anita now.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 11:45:32 AM
I just hope we all can agree on its personal choice. Just like if you believe in Jesus you don't force others to believe. Everyone should have the freedom to decide That's all I am advocating. I don't care if you think its murder still just stop shoving your beliefs on others. I tried to explain my point of view on why I don't think it is. But in the end its up to everyone to come up with their own decisions.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 11:45:38 AM
Criminals, have less rights than non criminals. We execute prisoners. Are you against the death penalty?
getting back on track with your analogy. So what crime did a fetus do?
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 11:46:01 AM
Criminals, have less rights than non criminals. We execute prisoners. Are you against the death penalty?
There is a process to strip them of their rights, and it's just not 1 right, its many. A fetus gets no "due process".
But then again, I am for abortion it doesn't bother me. Neither does the death penalty. I believe in capital punishment. Someone caught steeling should have 1 hand chopped off. Then the other if caught again. and so on. But that's just me.
And like you mentioned, it's hard to change someones thought/ethics.
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 11:46:43 AM
Omni,
What do you do to help reduce pollution that climate change is from?
1) Do you walk, bike, group transport 100% of your life
2) Do you own any electronic devices that contribute to someone digging in the earth for materials
3) Are any of your clothes made in factories that cause high pollution (made in china type stuff)
4) Do you consume anything bottled
5) If you ever leave Oahu, do you use a sail boat and not anything run on fossil fuels
6) Do you not own anything metal or lead based, since its also bad for the environment (guns, ammo, ammo can, knives, etc...)
7) Have you contacted your DC rep about climate change and any international agencies
See where I'm going with this? So if you feel climate change is a big deal, then then answer should be no to most of the above, and so should anyone else who feels the same way about climate change. If all these people did their part, then that solves part of the problem right?
I know a guy who became super into climate change and lives in OR. He and his gf do not use anything that runs on gas. He knits his/her own clothing, last I heard he was trying to learn how to make his own yarn/string from sheep sheers. They are vegans because animal factories are bad. Attend protest all the time and write to their senators about climate change. They moved to OR so they can do more compared to being here separated by an ocean. TBH, I'm pretty sure they're anita now.
https://youtu.be/xVlRompc1yE
Then she gets on a plane and goes galavanting around the world.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 11:49:07 AM
https://youtu.be/xVlRompc1yE
Then she gets on a plane and goes galavanting around the world.
She had a boat at some point. A very expensive one too. IDK if it was 100% sail or ran on those damn fossil fuel as well. But I'm gonna assume she and her parent get driven around and not bicycle or walk.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 11:49:39 AM
https://youtu.be/xVlRompc1yE
Then she gets on a plane and goes galavanting around the world.
How dare you post something so cringe worthy.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 11:50:24 AM
She had a boat at some point. A very expensive one too. IDK if it was 100% sail or ran on those damn fossil fuel as well. But I'm gonna assume she and her parent get driven around and not bicycle or walk.
was the boat made up of organic materials? I'm guessing it was made with fiberglass and resin
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 11:50:47 AM
Omni,
What do you do to help reduce pollution that climate change is from?
1) Do you walk, bike, group transport 100% of your life
I have fuel efficient car and am moving to town to lessen my commute and will be taking the rail
2) Do you own any electronic devices that contribute to someone digging in the earth for materials
Unfortunately yes
3) Are any of your clothes made in factories that cause high pollution (made in china type stuff)
Some are but recently I've been purchasing eco certified clothing
4) Do you consume anything bottled
Very rarely only alcohol. I don't drink bottled water or soda. I make my own kombuncha
5) If you ever leave Oahu, do you use a sail boat and not anything run on fossil fuels
I dont leave oahu often but when I do its my air, if there was another viable option of similar speed I would take it
6) Do you not own anything metal or lead based, since its also bad for the environment (guns, ammo, ammo can, knives, etc...)
I own plenty lol
7) Have you contacted your DC rep about climate change and any international agencies
I don't really ever contact politicians
See where I'm going with this? So if you feel climate change is a big deal, then then answer should be no to most of the above, and so should anyone else who feels the same way about climate change. If all these people did their part, then that solves part of the problem right?
I know a guy who became super into climate change and lives in OR. He and his gf do not use anything that runs on gas. He knits his/her own clothing, last I heard he was trying to learn how to make his own yarn/string from sheep sheers. They are vegans because animal factories are bad. Attend protest all the time and write to their senators about climate change. They moved to OR so they can do more compared to being here separated by an ocean. TBH, I'm pretty sure they're anita now.
I get what you are saying. I try not to waste, but I know I am part of the problem. We all need to worth together, even little changes matter. I'm not saying to go off the deep end. But we can't just ignore it. Most of the pollution isn't from people but companies/countries. If they started to market more green and we can all do the process slowly.
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 11:57:44 AM
There is a process to strip them of their rights, and it's just not 1 right, its many. A fetus gets no "due process".Me too. I’m all for Code of Hammurabi.
But then again, I am for abortion it doesn't bother me. Neither does the death penalty. I believe in capital punishment. Someone caught steeling should have 1 hand chopped off. Then the other if caught again. and so on. But that's just me.
And like you mentioned, it's hard to change someones thought/ethics.
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 11:58:26 AM
She had a boat at some point. A very expensive one too. IDK if it was 100% sail or ran on those damn fossil fuel as well. But I'm gonna assume she and her parent get driven around and not bicycle or walk.But I want an oompaloompa right away!!!
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 11:59:13 AM
I get what you are saying. I try not to waste, but I know I am part of the problem. We all need to worth together, even little changes matter. I'm not saying to go off the deep end. But we can't just ignore it. Most of the pollution isn't from people but companies/countries. If they started to market more green and we can all do the process slowly.So you don't practice "eco friendly practices" but you tell us we all need to believe in this unproven hypothesis. What the mpg of your fuel efficient car?
I don't believe in human caused climate change but I do more than you do but my motives are cost. I eBike to work because its cheaper, I get a workout and I don't sit in traffic (pre Pan Pacific Pandemic). I contact my reps with concerns to what is going on in our community in regards to the environment because the smell of goats and pesticides really stink up the neighborhood. When I do commute I have a hybrid agian I fill up gas way less. I have a rain catchment barrel to water my plants and am looking into recycling grey water via automated means (Arduino connected to pumps). again to lower my water bill.
Instead of preaching to a a one issue forum maybe you should do things - because every little thing matters - much like bringing a pot of hot water to a pool in the winter to warm it up.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 11:59:19 AM
There is a process to strip them of their rights, and it's just not 1 right, its many. A fetus gets no "due process".
But then again, I am for abortion it doesn't bother me. Neither does the death penalty. I believe in capital punishment. Someone caught steeling should have 1 hand chopped off. Then the other if caught again. and so on. But that's just me.
And like you mentioned, it's hard to change someones thought/ethics.
Wasn't the best analogy example. I guess I could of used another example but there aren't really many. Once you get human status you are pretty much set.
Yeah I just find it offensive that others seem to want to endlessly push their ethics on others.
getting back on track with your analogy. So what crime did a fetus do?
Not an analogy with that. Just requested an example of someone with less rights than another human. First one I could think of.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:03:14 PM
So you don't practice "eco friendly practices" but you tell us we all need to believe in this unproven hypothesis. What the mpg of your fuel efficient car?
I don't believe in human caused climate change but I do more than you do but my motives are cost. I eBike to work because its cheaper, I get a workout and I don't sit in traffic (pre Pan Pacific Pandemic). I contact my reps with concerns to what is going on in our community in regards to the environment. When I do commute I have a hybrid. I have a rain catchment barrel to water my plants and am looking into recycling grey water via automated means (Arduino connected to pumps). again to lower my water bill.
Instead of preaching to a a one issue forum maybe you should do things - because every little thing matters - much like bringing a pot of hot water to a pool in the winter to warm it up.
Ummm I literally listed some of the things I do? I pay rent so there is only so much i can do housing. If i owned a house it would be solar. I would also have a rain catchment system. My next car is a tesla. I tend to buy organic and certified eco friendly products. I would buy eco friendly guns but not sure they exist. I shop in bulk. Even all the things I do, the worst polluters are corporations and government.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 12:03:20 PM
I get what you are saying. I try not to waste, but I know I am part of the problem. We all need to worth together, even little changes matter. I'm not saying to go off the deep end. But we can't just ignore it. Most of the pollution isn't from people but companies/countries. If they started to market more green and we can all do the process slowly.
I'm glad you do something, but you really could do more. Don't count on the rail cause then that's hundreds of gallons of fossil fuels you will be using until it's built. Flying isn't the only option, and how dare you sacrifice our earth due to ease and speed of air travel. :rofl:
Even if you had a battery car, that battery still cost fuel to mine, make, and distribute. And so for the rest of that car. Gotta hoof it, just leave earlier to allocate the extra time it will take.
Amazon is trying to switch to electric vehicles vs. gas based. They had a commercial on it. But how toxic are those types of batteries and where does it go once it's passed it's life span? At least a metal engine, you can melt down.
You should look into who's the biggest polluter and how the US compares on that ranking. Then you will realize you're barking up the wrong tree. So you will be able to go on more mainland trips and drink more bottled water (made in the USA of course as to not contribute to the overseas big companies).
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 12:05:13 PM
So you don't practice "eco friendly practices" but you tell us we all need to believe in this unproven hypothesis. What the mpg of your fuel efficient car?
I don't believe in human caused climate change but I do more than you do but my motives are cost. I eBike to work because its cheaper, I get a workout and I don't sit in traffic (pre Pan Pacific Pandemic). I contact my reps with concerns to what is going on in our community in regards to the environment because the smell of goats and pesticides really stink up the neighborhood. When I do commute I have a hybrid agian I fill up gas way less. I have a rain catchment barrel to water my plants and am looking into recycling grey water via automated means (Arduino connected to pumps). again to lower my water bill.
Instead of preaching to a a one issue forum maybe you should do things - because every little thing matters - much like bringing a pot of hot water to a pool in the winter to warm it up.
You're official president of the 2a Climate Change Club. LMK if you need help filling out the forms. I got good practice when I became the president of the Tin Foil Society.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:06:34 PM
Ummm I literally listed some of the things I do? I pay rent so there is only so much i can do housing. If i owned a house it would be solar. I would also have a rain catchment system. My next car is a tesla. I tend to buy organic and certified eco friendly products. I would buy eco friendly guns but not sure they exist. I shop in bulk. Even all the things I do, the worst polluters are corporations and government.
Which corporations? I have stock so please advise me on what corporations pollute. See where I'm going.
I assume you mean the US govt. Which govt in the world is the cleanest? DO they have equivalent agencies like the US EPA? How about laws and regulations designed to protect the environment from pollution? I can't think of any other govt that does.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:07:19 PM
I'm glad you do something, but you really could do more. Don't count on the rail cause then that's hundreds of gallons of fossil fuels you will be using until it's built. Flying isn't the only option, and how dare you sacrifice our earth due to ease and speed of air travel. :rofl:
Even if you had a battery car, that battery still cost fuel to mine, make, and distribute. And so for the rest of that car. Gotta hoof it, just leave earlier to allocate the extra time it will take.
Amazon is trying to switch to electric vehicles vs. gas based. They had a commercial on it. But how toxic are those types of batteries and where does it go once it's passed it's life span? At least a metal engine, you can melt down.
You should look into who's the biggest polluter and how the US compares on that ranking. Then you will realize you're barking up the wrong tree. So you will be able to go on more mainland trips and drink more bottled water (made in the USA of course as to not contribute to the overseas big companies).
That's why I advocate larger deals that deal with the biggest polluters. And don't tend to punish the consumers. No ones perfect I can do more, but I am also not selfless. I just to to help a little, every bit helps. Change the discussion, the direction of humanity. Small voices can grow to loud voices. Every movement starts smart, every change has a beginning.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:09:32 PM
That's why I advocate larger deals that deal with the biggest polluters. And don't tend to punish the consumers. No ones perfect I can do more, but I am also not selfless. I just to to help a little, every bit helps. Change the discussion, the direction of humanity. Small voices can grow to loud voices. Every movement starts smart, every change has a beginning.
Consumers drive demand and looking at vehicles
https://www.businessinsider.com/pickup-trucks-outsell-passenger-cars-april-us-sales-first-time-2020-5 (https://www.businessinsider.com/pickup-trucks-outsell-passenger-cars-april-us-sales-first-time-2020-5)
Pickup trucks outsold passenger cars in the US for the first time ever last month as buyers flock toward bigger vehicles
US consumers aren't too concerned about "climate change" when it comes to vehicles.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:09:51 PM
Which corporations? I have stock so please advise me on what corporations pollute. See where I'm going.
I assume you mean the US govt. Which govt in the world is the cleanest? DO they have equivalent agencies like the US EPA? How about laws and regulations designed to protect the environment from pollution? I can't think of any other govt that does.
The EPA is a great agency. America leads the world in many aspects this is one of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations#Governmental_agencies
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:11:32 PM
Consumers drive demand and looking at vehicles
https://www.businessinsider.com/pickup-trucks-outsell-passenger-cars-april-us-sales-first-time-2020-5 (https://www.businessinsider.com/pickup-trucks-outsell-passenger-cars-april-us-sales-first-time-2020-5)
Pickup trucks outsold passenger cars in the US for the first time ever last month as buyers flock toward bigger vehicles
US consumers aren't too concerned about "climate change" when it comes to vehicles.
Its unfortunate. Hopefully the tesla truck and ford electric truck starts to convert people. Eventually people will learn but I hope its not too late. We only got 1 earth.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 12:11:49 PM
Ummm I literally listed some of the things I do? I pay rent so there is only so much i can do housing. If i owned a house it would be solar. I would also have a rain catchment system. My next car is a tesla. I tend to buy organic and certified eco friendly products. I would buy eco friendly guns but not sure they exist. I shop in bulk. Even all the things I do, the worst polluters are corporations and government.
I think CA passed some bill about not using lead in bullets. So solid brass or what ever needs to be used. You could use those since they do exist.
Also do you flush the toilet after every use? You can go like every 5 or just piss down the drain. Use gerbal power to power lamps, phones, TV, etc...
Corps are the worst polluters, but they make the products that you buy and need. So without them, bye bye your car, electronics, guns, ammo, etc...
On a side note, did you look up what "eco friendly" is for your companies that u support? There was a video about chicken on Amazon. Free range has no regulation. So you can create an opening to the chicken house and have it blocked by a fence that's outside and only 4 sq feet worth of area. You also do not have to force the chicken to go outside either. As long as there's an opening where it can move in and out of the chicken house, its "free range".
Same vid mentioned "free of anitbiotics". That's illegal in the US anyways. Companies put that on there so you want to buy their brand more than the guy who doesn't mention it.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:12:03 PM
The EPA is a great agency. America leads the world in many aspects this is one of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations#Governmental_agencies
but according to you our govt is a "climate change" offender
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:13:30 PM
Its unfortunate. Hopefully the tesla truck and ford electric truck starts to convert people. Eventually people will learn but I hope its not too late. We only got 1 earth.
bigger batteries more mining for lithium.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact)
and how are the machines used to mine for those minerals powered by? Fossil fuels.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:13:49 PM
but according to you our govt is a "climate change" offender
No ones perfect yo. Though with trump we have gone backwards on the EPA.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:14:33 PM
bigger batteries more mining for lithium.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact)
I am looking forward to technology and the new graphite batteries. Its all about direction, we will get better on the way. Most change is good.
Post by: macsak on October 14, 2020, 12:15:56 PM
Yeah I just find it offensive that others seem to want to endlessly push their ethics on others.
hello pot?
this is kettle
you're black
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:16:45 PM
I think CA passed some bill about not using lead in bullets. So solid brass or what ever needs to be used. You could use those since they do exist.
Also do you flush the toilet after every use? You can go like every 5 or just piss down the drain. Use gerbal power to power lamps, phones, TV, etc...
Corps are the worst polluters, but they make the products that you buy and need. So without them, bye bye your car, electronics, guns, ammo, etc...
On a side note, did you look up what "eco friendly" is for your companies that u support? There was a video about chicken on Amazon. Free range has no regulation. So you can create an opening to the chicken house and have it blocked by a fence that's outside and only 4 sq feet worth of area. You also do not have to force the chicken to go outside either. As long as there's an opening where it can move in and out of the chicken house, its "free range".
Same vid mentioned "free of anitbiotics". That's illegal in the US anyways. Companies put that on there so you want to buy their brand more than the guy who doesn't mention it.
Idk maybe my fight is pointless like voting 3rd party but I feel I can't just do nothing. Perhaps over time if enough people are like me there can be real change. Change is hard. People tend to fight it rather than accept it.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:17:04 PM
I am looking forward to technology and the new graphite batteries. Its all about direction, we will get better on the way. Most change is good.
graphite batteries still use lithium. I have a couple right now. They are more energy dense but use a different charging cycle than lithium poly. And guess what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/graphite-mining-pollution-in-china/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/graphite-mining-pollution-in-china/)
At five towns in two provinces of China, Washington Post journalists heard the same story from villagers living near graphite companies: sparkling night air, damaged crops, homes and belongings covered in soot, polluted drinking water —
Post by: macsak on October 14, 2020, 12:17:23 PM
That's why I advocate larger deals that deal with the biggest polluters. And don't tend to punish the consumers. No ones perfect I can do more, but I am also not selfless. I just to to help a little, every bit helps. Change the discussion, the direction of humanity. Small voices can grow to loud voices. Every movement starts smart, every change has a beginning.
you forgot "how dare you!"
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 12:18:14 PM
Its unfortunate. Hopefully the tesla truck and ford electric truck starts to convert people. Eventually people will learn but I hope its not too late. We only got 1 earth.
B4 you buy a 100% battery car, look into how bad that battery is for the environment with relation to it being made and disposed of after. Plus CA wild fires screwed 100% electric cars cause no power or places to charge. So gas is still king. We do have lots of EPA regs from tree huggers with drilling. The US has lots of oil, but cant access it or more expensive to do so because of EPA regs. So we have to buy overseas from countries who don't care about the earth. Wouldn't it be better to relax some regs so we can drill/frack more? Same goes with the oil we get here. My friend used to work as a harbor pilot some years ago. Thanks to the Jones act or something, the oil boat from our west doesn't dock in HI to drop off crude oil. Instead if goes to CA because they gotta pay if they stop in HI. Then from CA, it comes here. So using more fossil fuels to ship stuff to us that just passed our state due to regs/laws. He told me this many years ago, so IDK if it's still true or not.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:18:48 PM
Idk maybe my fight is pointless like voting 3rd party but I feel I can't just do nothing. Perhaps over time if enough people are like me there can be real change. Change is hard. People tend to fight it rather than accept it.
We are not having a fight. A debate about differing viewpoints and your answers are being rebutted.
It's like in grad school where you present your final paper in front of a panel - they try to poke holes in it and you defend it.....
The problem with people who say "climate change" this and that is they remove the factual arguments and inject emotional ones.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:21:24 PM
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 12:23:59 PM
We are not having a fight. A debate about differing viewpoints and your answers are being rebutted.Exactly
Speaking for myself, I’m not forcing my views, morals or anything else in anyone. I’m pointing out points that are either not based on logic or “known based on belief” and not being substantiated. Some seem to take that as being a victim, slandered, etc.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 12:24:22 PM
Idk maybe my fight is pointless like voting 3rd party but I feel I can't just do nothing. Perhaps over time if enough people are like me there can be real change. Change is hard. People tend to fight it rather than accept it.
The simple fact is people will not give up ease and luxury to save a planet that there is no proof is being destroyed. Ohh snap, I said it. ZERO PROOF.
And even if there was, a few countries doing their part will not help if many other countries are doing a lot worst (China, Indonesia, India, Vietnam, etc...)
Trump pulled us out of the Paris Accord cause countries like China wasn't paying their share or doing anything. So he's saving the US millions annually. He got blasted for it and even our geneious Ige wants to sign HI back in. A few months later, the UN actually admitted the Paris Accord does nothing for the earth. Trump was right again. You should have voted for him. He likes to give tax breaks, so if a company does go green, if anyone gives them an incentive to do so, it would be him. And since after his first tax cuts, many companies moved jobs/factories back, wouldn't that mean less pollution overseas because the USA has higher regs? Damn you really wasted your vote.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 12:25:38 PM
We still use fossil fuels because they are the most energy dense. Battery technology i.e. lithium based ones: Lithium polymer, lithium ion are catching up energy density but they still contribute to pollution when they are manufactured and disposed.
I'm old enough to remember paper bags are bad. So then switched to plastic bags. Plastic bags bad too. So now back to paper. Well which is it? And if it's both, then no bags right?
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 12:25:42 PM
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 12:26:59 PM
I'm old enough to remember paper bags are bad. So then switched to plastic bags. Plastic bags bad too. So now back to paper. Well which is it? And if it's both, then no bags right?Put a paper bag over head of someone, can. Put a plastic bag, might be trouble. :rofl:
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:27:28 PM
B4 you buy a 100% battery car, look into how bad that battery is for the environment with relation to it being made and disposed of after. Plus CA wild fires screwed 100% electric cars cause no power or places to charge. So gas is still king. We do have lots of EPA regs from tree huggers with drilling. The US has lots of oil, but cant access it or more expensive to do so because of EPA regs. So we have to buy overseas from countries who don't care about the earth. Wouldn't it be better to relax some regs so we can drill/frack more? Same goes with the oil we get here. My friend used to work as a harbor pilot some years ago. Thanks to the Jones act or something, the oil boat from our west doesn't dock in HI to drop off crude oil. Instead if goes to CA because they gotta pay if they stop in HI. Then from CA, it comes here. So using more fossil fuels to ship stuff to us that just passed our state due to regs/laws. He told me this many years ago, so IDK if it's still true or not.
Actually my goal is to take my house off the grid and do solar + battery backup.
The problem with that is batteries that pollute is still a better direction. They can invent better batteries. All the fracking in the world isn't going to improve things or encourage change or a different way of thinking.
I think the Jones act is beyond stupid and should be repealed. It only does harm economically and ecology.
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 12:27:43 PM
hello pot?But he’s obviously always correct.
this is kettle
you're black
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:27:46 PM
I'm old enough to remember paper bags are bad. So then switched to plastic bags. Plastic bags bad too. So now back to paper. Well which is it? And if it's both, then no bags right?
Trees are grown to produce paper bags. Something tree huggers overlooked
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:29:01 PM
And some “renewable” energy sources actually do more damage in the long run. Look up disposal for PV and solar systems. Do they save up front? Yea and what people tend to focus on. What about then those systems have exceeded their useful life? What, just dump them in space?
You are correct it isn't perfect now. But if people buy solar PV, then it builds a market. Over time PV panels with get better, more eco friendly and improve. But if you don't do anything it will never get to that point.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:30:18 PM
Actually my goal is to take my house off the grid and do solar + battery backup.
The problem with that is batteries that pollute is still a better direction. They can invent better batteries. All the fracking in the world isn't going to improve things or encourage change or a different way of thinking.
I think the Jones act is beyond stupid and should be repealed. It only does harm economically and ecology.
You can take your house off the grid RIGHT NOW. Is there a law that says your house must have electricity from HECO? Or any electricity?
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:31:04 PM
You can take your house off the grid RIGHT NOW. Is there a law that says your house must have electricity from HECO? Or any electricity?
I rent....I dont own a house. Owning a house in your 20's is quite rare.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:33:18 PM
You are correct it isn't perfect now. But if people buy solar PV, then it builds a market. Over time PV panels with get better, more eco friendly and improve. But if you don't do anything it will never get to that point.
the financial incentives for adopting solar PV in Hawaii eclipsed. I'm on grid tie - HECO gets the electricity from MY system at way less than they charge me for.
the PV market here is quite volatile.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiis-solar-market-continues-to-struggle-without-net-metering (https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiis-solar-market-continues-to-struggle-without-net-metering)
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 12:33:23 PM
You are correct it isn't perfect now. But if people buy solar PV, then it builds a market. Over time PV panels with get better, more eco friendly and improve. But if you don't do anything it will never get to that point.More damage in the long term is better? That’s not being better, that’s being short sighted.
It’s the perception of “clean” or “renewable” that is generally smoke and mirrors. That’s my point. Not that it isn’t worth trying to do so or improve the tech. It’s that people are sold in concepts based on limited info, or research into the issue.
Yeah, I was an uber advocate for much of what you describe. That is until I needed to dig into things for a work program where the idea was to spend lots to implement “greener” tech into facilities. Prob can find those posts in old threads here.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:34:12 PM
I rent....I dont own a house. Owning a house in your 20's is quite rare.
Not rare at all. I know many people in their 20s that own.
is there anything in your rental agreement that says you must have electricity from HECO?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 12:42:23 PM
Semantics? How about common sense?
I was looking for book shelves a couple of months ago. Was searching online and reading reviews to see how a given shelf is, particularly how easy or difficult it is to assemble. I found this book shelf I really liked and available locally, but the reviews on how difficult it was and how long it took made me take a pause. People were saying stuff like "no directions", "can't figure it out", etc. Anyways, there were also a number of positive reviews, but without mention of easy of assembly. I ended up buying two.
Got them home and yeah, the directions are minimum. However, with just a LITTLE bit of common sense, it was pretty easy to figure out how to assemble. Yeah, better directions probably could have made it easier, but I had zero issues assembling them. I think people have become so used to people telling them exactly what to do that they have lost the ability to think for themselves and figure things out.
The moral of your story is, if you have to be told how to do every little thing in life, then who is ever going to be able to depend on YOU for anything?
The best that type of person could do is take you to his drawer full of instruction manuals and let you figure out what you need. :wacko:
Critical thinking skills are necessary in all aspects of life. Performing a simple assembly job while being provided all the correct parts engineered to go together should not be a hardship.
Makes me wonder if evolution has peaked, and only the mentally strong among us will survive the next big population "correction."
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 12:44:27 PM
One is easily fixable and one isn't. Can have kids whenever, we only got 1 earth.
By that logic, we need to kill 90% of living humans to save the Earth.
We can always make more.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:48:25 PM
More damage in the long term is better? That’s not being better, that’s being short sighted.
It’s the perception of “clean” or “renewable” that is generally smoke and mirrors. That’s my point. Not that it isn’t worth trying to do so or improve the tech. It’s that people are sold in concepts based on limited info, or research into the issue.
Yeah, I was an uber advocate for much of what you describe. That is until I needed to dig into things for a work program where the idea was to spend lots to implement “greener” tech into facilities. Prob can find those posts in old threads here.
Less damage in long term
Wait for the tech you say, what motivates people to invent said tech? You need demand, having "green" demand brings innovation and better products over time.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:50:53 PM
Not rare at all. I know many people in their 20s that own.
is there anything in your rental agreement that says you must have electricity from HECO?
You know many people in their 20's living on oahu who own houses? Dang that's one interesting social circle. Yes you are not allowed to modify the house....its in most agreements.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 12:51:04 PM
Criminals, have less rights than non criminals. We execute prisoners. Are you against the death penalty?
Children who have never committed a crime -- who represent the purest and most innocent of all people on Earth -- somehow equate to criminals committing the most egregious crimes known to society?
Do you get muscle aches trying to twist your ideas like this?
The unborn have no say in what happens to them. It's up to the living adults to protect life. Capital punishment is a means to protecting the rest of society.
If you need an analogy, how about this:
If we kill criminals who take another life through the justices system,
then we should also kill those who murder the unborn.
The fact that we do not shows how little value we place on human life in all its forms.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 12:52:37 PM
Exactly
Speaking for myself, I’m not forcing my views, morals or anything else in anyone. I’m pointing out points that are either not based on logic or “known based on belief” and not being substantiated. Some seem to take that as being a victim, slandered, etc.
It's some people's natural tendency to playh the victim card when confronted with undeniable facts that are in opposition to their beliefs and misinformed "knowledge".
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 12:55:39 PM
I rent....I dont own a house. Owning a house in your 20's is quite rare.
It's also rare that someone in their 20s is arrogant enough to believe that they have some magical insight into political and social issues which those of us 2 and 3 times that age possess.
Yet, here you are.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:56:08 PM
You know many people in their 20's living on oahu who own houses? Dang that's one interesting social circle. Yes you are not allowed to modify the house....its in most agreements.
It's not rare in my observations. Some are fortunate. Some worked hard and prioritized expenses.
When you stop electricity service you are not modifying the house. Or simply; don't use anything coal electricity powered. Do you really need hot showers? The internet? Entertainment?
Post by: Inspector on October 14, 2020, 12:57:24 PM
B4 you buy a 100% battery car, look into how bad that battery is for the environment with relation to it being made and disposed of after. Plus CA wild fires screwed 100% electric cars cause no power or places to charge. So gas is still king. We do have lots of EPA regs from tree huggers with drilling. The US has lots of oil, but cant access it or more expensive to do so because of EPA regs. So we have to buy overseas from countries who don't care about the earth. Wouldn't it be better to relax some regs so we can drill/frack more? Same goes with the oil we get here. My friend used to work as a harbor pilot some years ago. Thanks to the Jones act or something, the oil boat from our west doesn't dock in HI to drop off crude oil. Instead if goes to CA because they gotta pay if they stop in HI. Then from CA, it comes here. So using more fossil fuels to ship stuff to us that just passed our state due to regs/laws. He told me this many years ago, so IDK if it's still true or not.If you buy an electric car it takes more energy to build that car because of the lithium which is strip mined which is also bad for the earth. It takes so much energy to build that battery that the savings you get will not even come close to saving energy with an electric car. Especially in Hawaii where the electricity comes from oil fired plant. In other words, buying an electric car thinking that it will save energy and is better for the environment is a fallacy that narrow minded snowflakes fall for. None of this includes what you mentioned about the pollution that is caused by the battery when it is disposed of. Nor does any of this include the hazardous waste that is created when manufacturing the battery and the disposal of that waste.
Just so you know that CA has a dirty little secret:
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/coal/californias-hidden-coal-use/
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 12:58:59 PM
Less damage in long term
Wait for the tech you say, what motivates people to invent said tech? You need demand, having "green" demand brings innovation and better products over time.
What motivates people to invent tech is money. Plain and simple. Apple didn't put out the iPhone to save the planet.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-QrHMCKJYK1k/Wi8JvPrys6I/AAAAAAAApVI/KfB9tKaqoyIq8jcVpx-yUnbgzKn8nIA3QCHMYCw/s1600/Michael%2BDouglas%2BGreed%2Bis%2BGood%2BWall%2BStreet%2B%25281987%2529%255B4%255D)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 01:04:03 PM
Actually my goal is to take my house off the grid and do solar + battery backup.
The problem with that is batteries that pollute is still a better direction. They can invent better batteries. All the fracking in the world isn't going to improve things or encourage change or a different way of thinking.
I think the Jones act is beyond stupid and should be repealed. It only does harm economically and ecology.
And how much fossil fuel is need to mine the raw materials, produce the energy to create those batteries, to move the big rigs day and night to bring the batteries to stores, and the fuel for planes and ships used to transport them to your island home?
Critical thinking required -- as well as more than a 20-yr-old's understanding of the stages of manufacturing leading up to the installation of a "green" product.
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 01:07:09 PM
And how much fossil fuel is need to mine the raw materials, produce the energy to create those batteries, to move the big rigs day and night to bring the batteries to stores, and the fuel for planes and ships used to transport them to your island home?
Critical thinking required -- as well as more than a 20-yr-old's understanding of the stages of manufacturing leading up to the installation of a "green" product.
sprinkle in some staffing requirements
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkFAcFtBD48
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 01:08:28 PM
Less damage in long term
Wait for the tech you say, what motivates people to invent said tech? You need demand, having "green" demand brings innovation and better products over time.
Bullshit.
Technology doesn't wait for demand. Most of the tech from the last half century was not being demanded until after the technology was achieved.
Sure, people can dream and wish for fantasy ideas, like a Delorean time machine, a Star Trek Phaser or food replicator, but that's not "demand". Demand only exists in economic context if the product exists.
Henry Ford didn't sell a single car before it was built, because there was no demand for non-existent cars.
Invention can be driven by necessity, but that's not the same as "demand".
Or are those words SYNONYMS? :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: ren on October 14, 2020, 01:14:03 PM
Bullshit.
Technology doesn't wait for demand. Most of the tech from the last half century was not being demanded until after the technology was achieved.
Sure, people can dream and wish for fantasy ideas, like a Delorean time machine, a Star Trek Phaser or food replicator, but that's not "demand". Demand only exists in economic context if the product exists.
Henry Ford didn't sell a single car before it was built, because there was no demand for non-existent cars.
Invention can be driven by necessity, but that's not the same as "demand".
Or are those words SYNONYMS? :rofl: :rofl:
I demand a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_WdITpxeDE
C'mon man! Elon? Bill Gates?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 01:14:36 PM
It's not rare in my observations. Some are fortunate. Some worked hard and prioritized expenses.
When you stop electricity service you are not modifying the house. Or simply; don't use anything coal electricity powered. Do you really need hot showers? The internet? Entertainment?
He should move to Vegas.
Cheap houses (WAY cheaper than Hawaii).
Lower overall cost of living.
Lots of IT job opportunities.
And best of all, Hydro-Electric and Solar power.
Plus, they offer Concealed Carry, so he can protect himself from all those Freedom-hating Pro-Life Christians!
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 01:17:04 PM
Not rare at all. I know many people in their 20s that own.I'm no where near my 20s anymore, but I owned my first home (well, mortgage) when I was 25. Many of my college classmates had their first homes or places around the same time.
is there anything in your rental agreement that says you must have electricity from HECO?
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 01:18:19 PM
Less damage in long termSince you're so sure, documentation?
Wait for the tech you say, what motivates people to invent said tech? You need demand, having "green" demand brings innovation and better products over time.
And I never said "wait for tech". There you go again. You're big on your perception that folks slander you, stop inserting your opinions into other's statements to try to make your point.
Demand in many cases were brought about by salesmen who convinced lawmakers to make those things requirements. It can be artificially driven by folks who have zero technical knowledge, but are motivated by greed. That's one of my biggest things about these "initiatives". It's folks like you who think you know it all and think you know better than folks who have already done their due diligence.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 01:19:28 PM
I demand a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_WdITpxeDE
C'mon man! Elon? Bill Gates?
Bill Gates is an interesting story.
Bill did not make his billions creating technology. He made it by dropping out of Harvard, creating a program written in BASIC called "DOS", and then becoming a genius on how to market and LICENSE software in a growing market.
The whole story of how he destroyed IBM by licensing his OS and BASIC Compiler, then directly competing with them after 2 years with MS DOS is a lesson in pure genius. The technology was ever changing, but the licensing of that technology is what gave him his edge.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 01:28:46 PM
Makes me wonder if evolution has peaked, and only the mentally strong among us will survive the next big population "correction."
There was a book about that. And how downs is the new evolution for humans. That's why there are so many more downs cases today than 30 years ago. Are humans too destructive (war, crime, etc...)? How many guys with downs would start a war. But on the other side, how many with downs can build technology like an electric car and battery? So is humans next evolution to go backward and not forward?
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 01:30:30 PM
You know many people in their 20's living on oahu who own houses? Dang that's one interesting social circle. Yes you are not allowed to modify the house....its in most agreements.
Having electricity running is in your lease? You can use my gerble idea to create just enough that you need. What if you don't pay your heco bill? Do they give you free power? So power is not mandatory, but a choice.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 01:36:52 PM
He should move to Vegas.
Cheap houses (WAY cheaper than Hawaii).
Lower overall cost of living.
Lots of IT job opportunities.
And best of all, Hydro-Electric and Solar power.
Plus, they offer Concealed Carry, so he can protect himself from all those Freedom-hating Pro-Life Christians!
Because 1 company doesn't control the state (HECO), power is cheap because many are competing to sell. Thank you capitalism. My friends power bill is like $30 a month . This is with the AC running all day and night due to the 100 degree heat in a 3 bedroom home he bought brand new built for $340,000. Actual cost brand new was $260K, but he added in upgrades.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 01:37:11 PM
He should move to Vegas.
Cheap houses (WAY cheaper than Hawaii).
Lower overall cost of living.
Lots of IT job opportunities.
And best of all, Hydro-Electric and Solar power.
Plus, they offer Concealed Carry, so he can protect himself from all those Freedom-hating Pro-Life Christians!
Vegas is turning into California I heard. I thought about moving I like Hawaii weather and people. All my friends and family live here. Would be completely uprooted.
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 01:38:44 PM
Having electricity running is in your lease? You can use my gerble idea to create just enough that you need. What if you don't pay your heco bill? Do they give you free power? So power is not mandatory, but a choice.
Yall really want me to run out of power so I can stop posting here! :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 01:39:47 PM
There was a book about that. And how downs is the new evolution for humans. That's why there are so many more downs cases today than 30 years ago. Are humans too destructive (war, crime, etc...)? How many guys with downs would start a war. But on the other side, how many with downs can build technology like an electric car and battery? So is humans next evolution to go backward and not forward?
Evolution does not sit atop technology. Did you not see Planet of the Apes? :rofl:
Evolution changes the species so it may adapt and better survive. If being less academically smart is a more advantageous trait, then I can see that as a trend. However, nature requires strength and aggressiveness in most species to be capable of survival. I don't see nature making us more passive to prevent wars. If anything, some humans will become stronger and more aggressive so that they may win those wars.
Post by: drck1000 on October 14, 2020, 01:42:10 PM
Yall really want me to run out of power so I can stop posting here! :rofl: :rofl:Just tap onto your neighbor's wifi. No tangible harm there, right? :hmm:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 01:42:49 PM
Vegas is turning into California I heard. I thought about moving I like Hawaii weather and people. All my friends and family live here. Would be completely uprooted.
None of that matters. The only thing that matters is what you want and need TODAY!
If you live in Vegas and can't get family and friends to visit, your problem is you. :rofl:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 01:44:04 PM
Having electricity running is in your lease? You can use my gerble idea to create just enough that you need. What if you don't pay your heco bill? Do they give you free power? So power is not mandatory, but a choice.
Electricity is a human right!
Power to the people!! :geekdanc:
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 01:54:10 PM
Vegas is turning into California I heard. I thought about moving I like Hawaii weather and people. All my friends and family live here. Would be completely uprooted.
Nevada/Vegas residents have a saying "Don't CA my Vegas". It's pretty much assholes from CA moving doing the same asshole CA type stuff in Vegas. Including voting. There is a stereotype that has emerged when someone has a CA license plate. Often they cut people off, park shitty, and honk their horn at the slightest thing, and road rage. Not all, but often enough that the stereotype exist. Same goes with assholes in stores or out and about. "Bet they're from CA" is getting more common a phrase. This was all pre Chyna-Virus.
Same goes with HI people. If you move to NV, you're still gonna vote blue? Because you did mention you're a democrat in the other post. There was a FFL bill on the GOP governors desk which he didn't sign for a while. The current governor (DNC) signed it very soon after taking office. You now need to go through a FFL to sell a firearm for private party to private party. IIRC, the exception is family is excluded. Even after the Vegas shooting, bump stocks were not banned at the state level in NV. They did try though.
Many are also not happy about their new governor doing shut downs for Chyna-virus and the restrictions he put on HCQ. This is what happens when you vote DNC.
Vegas was an option for us, but now it's back on the watch list because more and more CA type assholes moving and voting the same way they did back in CA.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 03:20:01 PM
Nevada/Vegas residents have a saying "Don't CA my Vegas". It's pretty much assholes from CA moving doing the same asshole CA type stuff in Vegas. Including voting. There is a stereotype that has emerged when someone has a CA license plate. Often they cut people off, park shitty, and honk their horn at the slightest thing, and road rage. Not all, but often enough that the stereotype exist. Same goes with assholes in stores or out and about. "Bet they're from CA" is getting more common a phrase. This was all pre Chyna-Virus.
Same goes with HI people. If you move to NV, you're still gonna vote blue? Because you did mention you're a democrat in the other post. There was a FFL bill on the GOP governors desk which he didn't sign for a while. The current governor (DNC) signed it very soon after taking office. You now need to go through a FFL to sell a firearm for private party to private party. IIRC, the exception is family is excluded. Even after the Vegas shooting, bump stocks were not banned at the state level in NV. They did try though.
Many are also not happy about their new governor doing shut downs for Chyna-virus and the restrictions he put on HCQ. This is what happens when you vote DNC.
Vegas was an option for us, but now it's back on the watch list because more and more CA type assholes moving and voting the same way they did back in CA.
The funny thing is, the more people that leave CA, the smaller their population. Hence, the fewer Representatives and electoral votes they get.
Also, once Texas or Nevada become swing states, the GOP voters could move to CA, vote out the Dems, and turn CA Red. :thumbsup: :geekdanc:
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 05:55:14 PM
Nevada/Vegas residents have a saying "Don't CA my Vegas". It's pretty much assholes from CA moving doing the same asshole CA type stuff in Vegas. Including voting. There is a stereotype that has emerged when someone has a CA license plate. Often they cut people off, park shitty, and honk their horn at the slightest thing, and road rage. Not all, but often enough that the stereotype exist. Same goes with assholes in stores or out and about. "Bet they're from CA" is getting more common a phrase. This was all pre Chyna-Virus.
Same goes with HI people. If you move to NV, you're still gonna vote blue? Because you did mention you're a democrat in the other post. There was a FFL bill on the GOP governors desk which he didn't sign for a while. The current governor (DNC) signed it very soon after taking office. You now need to go through a FFL to sell a firearm for private party to private party. IIRC, the exception is family is excluded. Even after the Vegas shooting, bump stocks were not banned at the state level in NV. They did try though.
Many are also not happy about their new governor doing shut downs for Chyna-virus and the restrictions he put on HCQ. This is what happens when you vote DNC.
Vegas was an option for us, but now it's back on the watch list because more and more CA type assholes moving and voting the same way they did back in CA.
What i never said i was a democrat? I'm independent. I belong to no party but tend to vote Republicans more often than democrats.
I just don't like that Vegas is a desert. Fuck the heat.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 06:00:06 PM
What i never said i was a democrat? I'm independent. I belong to no party but tend to vote Republicans more often than democrats.
I just don't like that Vegas is a desert. Fuck the heat.
Ever hear of Air Conditioning?
And the heat is a "dry heart," unlike Hawaii where it feels like 110 when the trades stop blowing.
I don't like extremes of either heat or cold, but I can adapt, especially when most businesses you need are open 24/7. Go out at night, and stay inside in the daytime.
They also have a few months where temps are very moderate -- even cold at night. It snowed when I was there a few years ago.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 14, 2020, 08:45:21 PM
What i never said i was a democrat? I'm independent. I belong to no party but tend to vote Republicans more often than democrats.My mistake, i thought u said in a post youre a democrat, but voting 3rd party this election.
I just don't like that Vegas is a desert. Fuck the heat.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 10:02:48 PM
Ever hear of Air Conditioning?
And the heat is a "dry heart," unlike Hawaii where it feels like 110 when the trades stop blowing.
I don't like extremes of either heat or cold, but I can adapt, especially when most businesses you need are open 24/7. Go out at night, and stay inside in the daytime.
They also have a few months where temps are very moderate -- even cold at night. It snowed when I was there a few years ago.
I've been to vegas, was a bit too dry for me. I like to fish and the ocean sometimes. But I think the worse is no family or friends up there. Not sure my girlfriend would even be willing to move lol
Post by: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 10:03:46 PM
My mistake, i thought u said in a post youre a democrat, but voting 3rd party this election.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Nope I don't think I have ever been a democrat. Kinda proud to be an independent if anything lol
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 11:34:12 PM
Nope I don't think I have ever been a democrat. Kinda proud to be an independent if anything lol
I head the Democrat and Republican National Committees have a restraining order against you trying to join.
You're not even allowed to tell people in jest you're affiliated with them.
You're not Independent by choice. You're simply experiencing a lack of options.
:shaka: :rofl: :geekdanc:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 14, 2020, 11:39:44 PM
I've been to vegas, was a bit too dry for me. I like to fish and the ocean sometimes. But I think the worse is no family or friends up there. Not sure my girlfriend would even be willing to move lol
Well, deserts do tend to be dry. But, if you have any respiratory or joint issues, desert states are a good choice.
If you're staying in Hawaii for family and friends and complaining about the cost of housing, maybe you need to reevaluate your options. Lots of people leave this state to get into the housing market. Nothing says it has to be forever. Buy a starter home, sell when the price goes up, buy an upgrade, sell when that price goes up.
In a couple of years, you might save enough buying and selling condos and houses to afford one in Hawaii.
Hell, sometimes it just takes one person in their circle to have the guts to take that leap, then your family and friends decide to follow you and have a better chance of improving their own lives, too.
But, if you're happy renting and staying in the same state until you die with little to nothing by way of real estate to show for all those years, it's no skin off my nose! :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
Post by: omnigun on October 15, 2020, 06:04:24 AM
Well, deserts do tend to be dry. But, if you have any respiratory or joint issues, desert states are a good choice.
If you're staying in Hawaii for family and friends and complaining about the cost of housing, maybe you need to reevaluate your options. Lots of people leave this state to get into the housing market. Nothing says it has to be forever. Buy a starter home, sell when the price goes up, buy an upgrade, sell when that price goes up.
In a couple of years, you might save enough buying and selling condos and houses to afford one in Hawaii.
Hell, sometimes it just takes one person in their circle to have the guts to take that leap, then your family and friends decide to follow you and have a better chance of improving their own lives, too.
But, if you're happy renting and staying in the same state until you die with little to nothing by way of real estate to show for all those years, it's no skin off my nose! :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
Lol I bought a condo here. Just renting for a little while now. Then in a years from now I can hopefully get a house. Renting sucks I agree.
Post by: macsak on October 15, 2020, 06:20:51 AM
Lol I bought a condo here. Just renting for a little while now. Then in a years from now I can hopefully get a house. Renting socks I agree.
you rent socks?
Post by: drck1000 on October 15, 2020, 07:55:33 AM
you rent socks?cheaper than warm apple pies. . .
:rofl:
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 15, 2020, 08:54:08 AM
cheaper than warm apple pies. . .
:rofl:
And can reuse a few times.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 15, 2020, 09:00:35 AM
Well, deserts do tend to be dry. But, if you have any respiratory or joint issues, desert states are a good choice.
If you're staying in Hawaii for family and friends and complaining about the cost of housing, maybe you need to reevaluate your options. Lots of people leave this state to get into the housing market. Nothing says it has to be forever. Buy a starter home, sell when the price goes up, buy an upgrade, sell when that price goes up.
In a couple of years, you might save enough buying and selling condos and houses to afford one in Hawaii.
Hell, sometimes it just takes one person in their circle to have the guts to take that leap, then your family and friends decide to follow you and have a better chance of improving their own lives, too.
But, if you're happy renting and staying in the same state until you die with little to nothing by way of real estate to show for all those years, it's no skin off my nose! :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
^^^This. For us not moving, it's because I have a good job and would take a huge pay cut. Even with the cost of living being a lot less on the mainland, I would come up short due to the pay cut. And my job is 100% commission so to restart on the mainland puts me back at 10 cents a hour. The wife's job can be done anywhere on the mainland and income will be about the same.
But if my income ever stopped for what ever reason, we will be definitely moving.
1 factor I see often with friends who move is that they had to move back after many years to take care of their parents. Even though the mainland has more options for old folks care and cheaper ones, at that stage of their old life, it's very hard on them to be in a new environment. Kind of like teaching a dog new tricks. Especially one if they're in a state that it's not common to just go holo holo (vegas too hot). They would have to learn the bus system, train, area (no GPS usage on smart phone). Stuff like that is very hard to teach an old person.
So these people have to basically give up what they worked hard to restart a life on the mainland, only to come back and struggle again. A good idea would be to move the parents up once they retire. That way they're able to still learn new things and get to know the area.
Post by: omnigun on October 15, 2020, 09:54:07 AM
^^^This. For us not moving, it's because I have a good job and would take a huge pay cut. Even with the cost of living being a lot less on the mainland, I would come up short due to the pay cut. And my job is 100% commission so to restart on the mainland puts me back at 10 cents a hour. The wife's job can be done anywhere on the mainland and income will be about the same.
But if my income ever stopped for what ever reason, we will be definitely moving.
1 factor I see often with friends who move is that they had to move back after many years to take care of their parents. Even though the mainland has more options for old folks care and cheaper ones, at that stage of their old life, it's very hard on them to be in a new environment. Kind of like teaching a dog new tricks. Especially one if they're in a state that it's not common to just go holo holo (vegas too hot). They would have to learn the bus system, train, area (no GPS usage on smart phone). Stuff like that is very hard to teach an old person.
So these people have to basically give up what they worked hard to restart a life on the mainland, only to come back and struggle again. A good idea would be to move the parents up once they retire. That way they're able to still learn new things and get to know the area.
Yeah unless you move in with parents and then your housing situation is solved and you either inherit the house or can buy out siblings. Yeah getting a new Job is a bit difficult. I enjoy my current job. Its stable. If i wanted to chase money I would have to go to comifornia or similar tech zone, so back to square one. Chill rural towns with affordable housing aint looking for a cloud computing tech worker.
Post by: drck1000 on October 15, 2020, 10:14:53 AM
And can reuse a few times.As long as you no flex on 'um too hard :rofl:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 15, 2020, 12:21:40 PM
Yeah unless you move in with parents and then your housing situation is solved and you either inherit the house or can buy out siblings. Yeah getting a new Job is a bit difficult. I enjoy my current job. Its stable. If i wanted to chase money I would have to go to comifornia or similar tech zone, so back to square one. Chill rural towns with affordable housing aint looking for a cloud computing tech worker.
Who said anything about chasing money?
We're talking about options to be able to afford to buy a house in Hawaii.
After about a year here, a new hire with my contracting company came to work with me. He was newly married to a woman working for a different contractor -- same building.
They were living with her parents in mililani Mauka, trying to earn enough between the two of them to save for a downpayment on a house themselves.
After 5 years, 2 kids and a job change for him, they finally had what they needed to qualify for a mortgage. In the meantime, the grandparents had to live in the same house with 2 infants.
I'm sure the grandparents liked taking care of the kids, but with both parents working full time, that's a bit much for me personally.
Anyway, in Hawaii, living with the parents until long after college is very common. I'm sure the Omni-plan of hoping the parents kick off early and leave you a windfall works for a few, but it's not exactly a "plan".
Post by: ren on October 15, 2020, 12:31:21 PM
1 factor I see often with friends who move is that they had to move back after many years to take care of their parents. Even though the mainland has more options for old folks care and cheaper ones, at that stage of their old life, it's very hard on them to be in a new environment. Kind of like teaching a dog new tricks. Especially one if they're in a state that it's not common to just go holo holo (vegas too hot). They would have to learn the bus system, train, area (no GPS usage on smart phone). Stuff like that is very hard to teach an old person.
So these people have to basically give up what they worked hard to restart a life on the mainland, only to come back and struggle again. A good idea would be to move the parents up once they retire. That way they're able to still learn new things and get to know the area.
That's where I'm at. You know what would make things really really really, like REALLY easier to live here? If you aren't physically handicapped don't use the handicap stall.
My dad's in a wheelchair - disabled. It's rare that I find a stall close to the grocery store so I don't have to wheel him from across the parking lot and across lanes of traffic.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 15, 2020, 12:38:31 PM
That's where I'm at. You know what would make things really really really, like REALLY easier to live here? If you aren't physically handicapped don't use the handicap stall.
My dad's in a wheelchair - disabled. It's rare that I find a stall close to the grocery store so I don't have to wheel him from across the parking lot and across lanes of traffic.
If you see a car in a HC spot without a HC tag or windshield placard, take a couple of pictures with your cell phone. That records the type of car, license plate, lack of required HC parking permits, and date & time. Take that to the store manager. If you get lucky, the manager can contact whoever is authorized to ticket in that parking area.
Calling 911 rarely works. HC violators are not a high priority. There are auxiliary police volunteers who are specifically assigned to enforce HC parking restrictions.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 15, 2020, 12:40:03 PM
As for us, we paid rent, but cheaper than normal because family owned the apartment. Then got help with half the down payment for our condo from my parents (5% of 10%). It was either help with the partial down payment or they pay for our wedding. We chose the down payment. But it did take lots of convincing for Mrs. CMO to be on board. She wanted a huge wedding. We then had a very cheap, but good wedding and was a few hundred dollars below our budget. We then bought an affordable program condo.
So there are many options besides just inheriting a home. They key is saving for that down payment. We were lucky that for the affordable program, they only require a 10% down since we're first time home buyers and own no other properties. If we had to come up with a 20 or 30% down, forget it. Moving would have more points added to that side.
I've had friends deploy and had $50K in their bank waiting for them when they came home. I told them to use it for a down payment. Some listened, others bought a new car and stereo system. Fast forward 6 years and the ones who bought a car still live at home with parents.
But also, no one needs to buy a home. Nothing wrong with paying rent. TBH, our mortgage is way more than what our rent was and add in the maintenance fee on top of that. If we stayed as renters, we could buy way more stuff. I would probably have a Barrett 50 cal by now.
Post by: omnigun on October 15, 2020, 12:44:10 PM
My friend is an electrical engineer. Made big bucks, but lived at home for 5 years. No kids, no gf. Paid cash for a condo. He even drove his parents car to work because they both worked in downtown which has no parking.
As for us, we paid rent, but cheaper than normal because family owned the apartment. Then got help with half the down payment for our condo from my parents (5% of 10%). It was either help with the partial down payment or they pay for our wedding. We chose the down payment. But it did take lots of convincing for Mrs. CMO to be on board. She wanted a huge wedding. We then had a very cheap, but good wedding and was a few hundred dollars below our budget. We then bought an affordable program condo.
So there are many options besides just inheriting a home. They key is saving for that down payment. We were lucky that for the affordable program, they only require a 10% down since we're first time home buyers and own no other properties. If we had to come up with a 20 or 30% down, forget it. Moving would have more points added to that side.
I've had friends deploy and had $50K in their bank waiting for them when they came home. I told them to use it for a down payment. Some listened, others bought a new car and stereo system. Fast forward 6 years and the ones who bought a car still live at home with parents.
But also, no one needs to buy a home. Nothing wrong with paying rent. TBH, our mortgage is way more than what our rent was and add in the maintenance fee on top of that. If we stayed as renters, we could buy way more stuff. I would probably have a Barrett 50 cal by now.
Smart, I told my GF that we should have a cheap wedding too. Save the money for the house. Ideally I would like to have enough to buy the house and keep the condo to have someone else pay my mortgage. But thats a bit of a stretch.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 15, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
That's where I'm at. You know what would make things really really really, like REALLY easier to live here? If you aren't physically handicapped don't use the handicap stall.
My dad's in a wheelchair - disabled. It's rare that I find a stall close to the grocery store so I don't have to wheel him from across the parking lot and across lanes of traffic.
Mrs. CMO had foot surgery for Plantar Fasciatus. Her doc gave her a note and we went and got a HC card. We used it once. I felt guilty after that 1 time and never used it again. I told her to let others who are in more need use the stall. She can crutch just fine, it just takes more time due to moving slower.
While at satellite city hall, had another guy with a heart condition who cannot walk far and get his heart beat too fast. He told us to make sure we keep the little card in our wallet because people do challenge you, even though you have the plaque on the mirror.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 15, 2020, 12:46:38 PM
Smart, I told my GF that we should have a cheap wedding too.
GF, not fiance?
Luckily, we were not gun owners when we got money. So less gun community asshole friends to invite to the wedding. We actually made money on our wedding. So with the small leftovers, is when we got the VP9, AR, safe, some mags, and ammo.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 15, 2020, 12:47:51 PM
My friend is an electrical engineer. Made big bucks, but lived at home for 5 years. No kids, no gf. Paid cash for a condo. He even drove his parents car to work because they both worked in downtown which has no parking.
As for us, we paid rent, but cheaper than normal because family owned the apartment. Then got help with half the down payment for our condo from my parents (5% of 10%). It was either help with the partial down payment or they pay for our wedding. We chose the down payment. But it did take lots of convincing for Mrs. CMO to be on board. She wanted a huge wedding. We then had a very cheap, but good wedding and was a few hundred dollars below our budget. We then bought an affordable program condo.
So there are many options besides just inheriting a home. They key is saving for that down payment. We were lucky that for the affordable program, they only require a 10% down since we're first time home buyers and own no other properties. If we had to come up with a 20 or 30% down, forget it. Moving would have more points added to that side.
I've had friends deploy and had $50K in their bank waiting for them when they came home. I told them to use it for a down payment. Some listened, others bought a new car and stereo system. Fast forward 6 years and the ones who bought a car still live at home with parents.
But also, no one needs to buy a home. Nothing wrong with paying rent. TBH, our mortgage is way more than what our rent was and add in the maintenance fee on top of that. If we stayed as renters, we could buy way more stuff. I would probably have a Barrett 50 cal by now.
The 2 main financial benefits of owning vs renting are mortgage interest deductions and increasing equity. Even with the housing crisis in 2007-2008, the low interest rates still make buying a good deal if you can work out the monthly cash flow. At the end of the year, I get a good size income tax return instead of paying more thanks to the deduction.
I still own the first home I bought in Virginia. As a rental, not only do I have the renters paying my mortgage, I also get to claim deductions for depreciation, operating expenses, maintenance and repairs, and property management fees -- all on top of the mortgage interest.
If things here get too difficult, that home will be paid off free and clear. I can sell it, take out a loan, kick out the renters and live mortgage-free, .....
Options are good.
Post by: drck1000 on October 15, 2020, 12:49:30 PM
SNIPBarrett > Condo
But also, no one needs to buy a home. Nothing wrong with paying rent. TBH, our mortgage is way more than what our rent was and add in the maintenance fee on top of that. If we stayed as renters, we could buy way more stuff. I would probably have a Barrett 50 cal by now.
Cool :thumbsup:
:facepalm:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 15, 2020, 08:53:53 PM
Ultimately the two sides both produce a few arguments that come down to a bit of a stale mate. Personally I lean towards pro-life but not sure how much legal restriction I would impose.
Legally it is quite an interesting battle as well. It is rather ironic that conservatives are generally more on the left given that banning abortion is bigger government and more control over freedoms.
Post by: omnigun on October 15, 2020, 08:56:28 PM
I used to debate abortion on a forum much like this one. It is a very complex issues with many layers of arguments and counter arguments.
Ultimately the two sides both produce a few arguments that come down to a bit of a stale mate. Personally I lean towards pro-life but not sure how much legal restriction I would impose.
Legally it is quite an interesting battle as well. It is rather ironic that conservatives are generally more on the left given that banning abortion is bigger government and more control over freedoms.
Yeah the whole don't control muh guns, but control dem women's bodies argument. States rights for abortions but not for guns. Religious freedoms but then hate on people who dont believe.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 15, 2020, 09:04:32 PM
I used to debate abortion on a forum much like this one. It is a very complex issues with many layers of arguments and counter arguments.
Ultimately the two sides both produce a few arguments that come down to a bit of a stale mate. Personally I lean towards pro-life but not sure how much legal restriction I would impose.
Legally it is quite an interesting battle as well. It is rather ironic that conservatives are generally more on the left given that banning abortion is bigger government and more control over freedoms.
Control is warranted whenever there is a victim being deprived of their right to life.
It's one thing government has a duty to do: protect the weakest among us.
There's nothing hypocritical in that/. It's not the same as, say, government controlled healthcare.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 15, 2020, 09:21:00 PM
Control is warranted whenever there is a victim being deprived of their right to life.
It's one thing government has a duty to do: protect the weakest among us.
There's nothing hypocritical in that/. It's not the same as, say, government controlled healthcare.
Not hypocritical, only that it is more government control, not less. Abortion really isn't an issue tied to the left or right side of a political spectrum, it just happens than in America, people on the right also happen to be more pro-life.
The stale mate from the two competing arguments exists in where we both value protection of an innocent life while also valuing freedom slavery. No, slavery is not a perfect analogy to pregnancy but is about as close an analogy as one can use for an unwanted pregnancy.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 15, 2020, 09:25:05 PM
Yeah the whole don't control muh guns, but control dem women's bodies argument. States rights for abortions but not for guns. Religious freedoms but then hate on people who dont believe.
Personally I leave religion out of the abortion debate. People routinely frame it as religious control over people's life however being religious does not mean one is pro-life and likewise being atheist doesn't mean one has to be pro-choice. If a non-religious person comes to the conclusion that abortion is wrong then it cannot be said they are enforcing a religious belief on others. If you remove religion from the equation, you defeat one of the main arguments presented by the pro-choice crowd.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 15, 2020, 10:20:28 PM
Not hypocritical, only that it is more government control, not less. Abortion really isn't an issue tied to the left or right side of a political spectrum, it just happens than in America, people on the right also happen to be more pro-life.
The stale mate from the two competing arguments exists in where we both value protection of an innocent life while also valuing freedom slavery. No, slavery is not a perfect analogy to pregnancy but is about as close an analogy as one can use for an unwanted pregnancy.
You seem to be more stuck on the phrase "government control" when we are really talking about "government protection."
When the police arrive on the scene and stop a robbery or rape, do you cry about "government control" of the people they arrest?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 15, 2020, 10:34:41 PM
You seem to be more stuck on the phrase "government control" when we are really talking about "government protection."
When the police arrive on the scene and stop a robbery or rape, do you cry about "government control" of the people they arrest?
One man's protection is another man's control.
Rape is obviously a poor analogy because someone is committing a crime, they are doing something wrong that is entirely within their control. The rapist has forfeited their right to not be harmed. Such is not the situation with a pregnancy.
The closest analogy I could come up with would be a man in a medical situation where another person's life depending on their own sacrifice. Imagine you were on a hospital bed giving a transfusion to another person who was losing blood. Their life directly depends on you staying there to provide blood. Should you have the freedom to get up from the bed and leave even if it means the man in need of the blood transfusion would die? Or is he a victim being deprived of the right to life? Now switch positions, instead of the blood donor you are the doctor and the patient says they are leaving. Do you strap the donor down to save the life of the donee?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 16, 2020, 12:56:56 AM
One man's protection is another man's control.
Rape is obviously a poor analogy because someone is committing a crime, they are doing something wrong that is entirely within their control. The rapist has forfeited their right to not be harmed. Such is not the situation with a pregnancy.
And if someone is performing a partial birth abortion, I would argue they, too, are committing a crime -- whether the law recognizes it as such or not.
Just because an act is lawful doesn't mean it's not a crime.
Crime --noun "a grave offense especially against morality"
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 06:59:56 AM
One man's protection is another man's control.
Rape is obviously a poor analogy because someone is committing a crime, they are doing something wrong that is entirely within their control. The rapist has forfeited their right to not be harmed. Such is not the situation with a pregnancy.
The closest analogy I could come up with would be a man in a medical situation where another person's life depending on their own sacrifice. Imagine you were on a hospital bed giving a transfusion to another person who was losing blood. Their life directly depends on you staying there to provide blood. Should you have the freedom to get up from the bed and leave even if it means the man in need of the blood transfusion would die? Or is he a victim being deprived of the right to life? Now switch positions, instead of the blood donor you are the doctor and the patient says they are leaving. Do you strap the donor down to save the life of the donee?
Yeah, I think this analogy works. Though since I don't believe its a person its more akin to just forcing people to donate blood.
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 07:01:17 AM
And if someone is performing a partial birth abortion, I would argue they, too, are committing a crime -- whether the law recognizes it as such or not.
Just because an act is lawful doesn't mean it's not a crime.
Crime --noun "a grave offense especially against morality"
You know that's really rare right? Most abortions occur early on....mostly only ones that happen late are because they find defects or something. Stop twisting facts to gain sympathy.
Post by: ren on October 16, 2020, 07:37:50 AM
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 08:42:33 AM
debating abortion on a 2a forum is dumb
Why? There's no reason why you cant both support guns and abortion. Technically they should be intertwined. Both is freedom of choice, just like speech.
Post by: ren on October 16, 2020, 08:44:39 AM
Why? There's no reason why you cant both support guns and abortion. Technically they should be intertwined. Both is freedom of choice, just like speech.
I don't agree with your opinion.
Post by: robtmc on October 16, 2020, 08:46:54 AM
debating abortion on a 2a forum is dumbThis site has become infested with three clowns that clearly are here to argue. For political animosity, spite, subterfuge, or to try and bolster self esteem by taking on those with some knowledge.
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 08:58:21 AM
I don't agree with your opinion.
That's fine this is America, we are entitled to our own opinions. I won't force mine on you and you shouldn't on me. That's mainly what I am advocating.
This site has become infested with three clowns that clearly are here to argue. For political animosity, spite, subterfuge, or to try and bolster self esteem by taking on those with some knowledge.
So if someone has a different opinion that you, they are automatically clowns? You know there are plenty of gun owners with different opinions...casting them away because they don't believe the same things is a quick way to alienate gun owners and lose your rights. We are already endangered lets work together and not against.
Imagine if liberals don't hate guns. Then both parties will support our 2nd amendment rights. If you keep making it divisive it will always be a political issue. I know democrats that own guns. I am not saying convert, but keep an open mind. Gun rights should not be a party issue. If you keep forcing people to choose abortion or 2a rights, you will lose voters. Independent voters like myself that don't agree with many republican party policies or democrats are the last thing stopping you guys losing your rights. If some lesbian has to choose between the right of getting a gun or married, they probably going to choose the later and gun rights loses another vote. If republicans just stop trying to police peoples their party would be much more popular.
Post by: ren on October 16, 2020, 09:01:12 AM
There's arguments all over the board - not just off topic or political. Some are non sense.
Some people post in off topic or political sub forums more than any other. So if you are looking for a comprehensive debate a more appropriate forum would be the most prudent. i.e. Planned Parenthood forum or a social media group. The more you dive into off topic / political arguments the more you divide and muddy the topic of 2a rights as you implied. As you can see a lot of 2a topics become derailed.
Don't care if you are LGBTZ, supports abortion etc. until you make it an issue as a gun owner or supporter of 2a.
Post by: Direjackalope on October 16, 2020, 09:25:15 AM
This site has become infested with three clowns that clearly are here to argue. For political animosity, spite, subterfuge, or to try and bolster self esteem by taking on those with some knowledge.
It’s like watching three retarded Twitter bots reading from their script trying to sell each other garbage off Amazon.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 16, 2020, 09:32:00 AM
The closest analogy I could come up with would be a man in a medical situation where another person's life depending on their own sacrifice. Imagine you were on a hospital bed giving a transfusion to another person who was losing blood. Their life directly depends on you staying there to provide blood. Should you have the freedom to get up from the bed and leave even if it means the man in need of the blood transfusion would die? Or is he a victim being deprived of the right to life? Now switch positions, instead of the blood donor you are the doctor and the patient says they are leaving. Do you strap the donor down to save the life of the donee?
The question is, is said transfusion being forced upon? What if the person needing blood is a convicted rapist and was shot while raping a woman. I would not freely sit there to donate my blood. But then again, I am for capital punishment, so to each their own.
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 09:48:27 AM
I agree with robtmc.
There's arguments all over the board - not just off topic or political. Some are non sense.
Some people post in off topic or political sub forums more than any other. So if you are looking for a comprehensive debate a more appropriate forum would be the most prudent. i.e. Planned Parenthood forum or a social media group. The more you dive into off topic / political arguments the more you divide and muddy the topic of 2a rights as you implied. As you can see a lot of 2a topics become derailed.
Don't care if you are LGBTZ, supports abortion etc. until you make it an issue as a gun owner or supporter of 2a.
I lobby democrats also, trying to get them to see 2a rights and small government and immigration. Same way I try and get you guys to accept SOME of their issues which i feel both sides should agree on. Trying to work both sides to expand gun rights and freedom. Just trying to expand gun rights for all and hopefully lessen this partisan divide. We are all American in the end.
As a person in the middle of both parties I see both sides. There's no reason why we all can't get along. And everyone can support gun rights. Fuck political parties.
Post by: Jl808 on October 16, 2020, 09:57:27 AM
We can discuss and agree to disagree about other topics. We created this Political Discussion section to keep this kind of heated topics from going elsewhere on the forum.
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 10:09:15 AM
Most of us here are here for the #1 purpose of defending our gun rights. If you’re not here to support and defend the 2a, then this is the wrong forum.
We can discuss and agree to disagree about other topics. We created this Political Discussion section to keep this kind of heated topics from going elsewhere on the forum.
Isn't the best way to defend gun rights by adding more people to support it? Meaning convincing democrats and independents? To do so you need to meet a little half way. You give them abortion, they give you guns. You link both to freedom and freewill. That destroys their talking points. I will do my best to keep these topics off other treads.
Democrats nor republicans are the majority in the nation. Both have to work together.
In Hawaii Democrats ARE the majority. That means double so you need to work with them to keep your rights. Pick your fights. Tell them if they really support lgbt and abortion rights why dont they support the right to choose to own a gun. Call them out on the hypocrisy. But if you are also a hypocrite you cant do that.
Post by: drck1000 on October 16, 2020, 10:27:33 AM
Isn't the best way to defend gun rights by adding more people to support it? Meaning convincing democrats and independents? To do so you need to meet a little half way. You give them abortion, they give you guns. You link both to freedom and freewill. That destroys their talking points. I will do my best to keep these topics off other treads.See, this is where you take the hint and say “my bad”. He’s not trying to debate with you. But you’re not hearing it because you’re so stuck on proving your strong opinions. Listen for just a bit.
Democrats nor republicans are the majority in the nation. Both have to work together.
In Hawaii Democrats ARE the majority. That means double so you need to work with them to keep your rights. Pick your fights. Tell them if they really support lgbt and abortion rights why dont they support the right to choose to own a gun. Call them out on the hypocrisy. But if you are also a hypocrite you cant do that.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 16, 2020, 12:02:58 PM
You give them abortion, they give you guns. You link both to freedom and freewill.
Rights are not to be bargained with. Because then they will argue, why does 1 need an "assault rifle"? I don't need a need, I have 1 because I can. Once you are required to have a need for something, it's no longer a right, but permission.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 16, 2020, 12:34:28 PM
You know that's really rare right? Most abortions occur early on....mostly only ones that happen late are because they find defects or something. Stop twisting facts to gain sympathy.
You know that instances of rape, incest and risk to the mother's life are also rare, right?
Not sure how that's relevant, put I can play your game.
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 12:35:17 PM
Rights are not to be bargained with. Because then they will argue, why does 1 need an "assault rifle"? I don't need a need, I have 1 because I can. Once you are required to have a need for something, it's no longer a right, but permission.
You have a right to control your own body and get an abortion. Just like you have the right to own firearms all of them. Tell then if they start limiting what kind of guns then they should start limiting what kind of abortions are allowed. Should shut that topic down quick.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 16, 2020, 12:37:32 PM
You have a right to control your own body and get an abortion. Just like you have the right to own firearms all of them. Tell then if they start limiting what kind of guns then they should start limiting what kind of abortions are allowed. Should shut that topic down quick.
Is there a reason you have to reply to every single post, most often just regurgitating the same points you've already posted over and over and over again?
Just wondering. I already know, but would like to see you state it....
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 12:42:59 PM
You know that instances of rape, incest and risk to the mother's life are also rare, right?
Not sure how that's relevant, put I can play your game.
Not sure how that relevant. Most abortions are early and when the fetus is barely formed. Even those of the causes you mentioned. You generally don't just wait for no reason. Unless it's development issues then you find that out late. You don't tend legislate the few. Just like you shouldn't ban guns cause one wacko shoots up a school.
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 12:44:11 PM
Is there a reason you have to reply to every single post, most often just regurgitating the same points you've already posted over and over and over again?
Just wondering. I already know, but would like to see you state it....
I'm fairly consistent in my views :crazy:
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 16, 2020, 12:44:31 PM
You have a right to control your own body and get an abortion. Just like you have the right to own firearms all of them. Tell then if they start limiting what kind of guns then they should start limiting what kind of abortions are allowed. Should shut that topic down quick.
What part of the Bill of Rights/Constitution state that? This is a serious question. I never read the entire constitution nor amendments after the 15th or so.I've skimmed some of it like 1a, 4a, 14a, 5a, none mentioned abortion or body control.
For firearms, specifically, it's the 2nd amendment.
Post by: ren on October 16, 2020, 12:47:50 PM
You have a right to control your own body and get an abortion. Just like you have the right to own firearms all of them. Tell then if they start limiting what kind of guns then they should start limiting what kind of abortions are allowed. Should shut that topic down quick.
That's why you are not garnering much positive feedback. You are tangling 2 very contentious issues. We have a hard time with the 2a argument as it is and your argument complicates the matter further.
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 01:14:16 PM
What part of the Bill of Rights/Constitution state that? This is a serious question. I never read the entire constitution nor amendments after the 15th or so.I've skimmed some of it like 1a, 4a, 14a, 5a, none mentioned abortion or body control.
For firearms, specifically, it's the 2nd amendment.
14th under privacy which includes the government not invading your privacy of what you do with your own body. Back when the Constitution was being written. Nothing like today was possible, it was medically very ancient.
Post by: ren on October 16, 2020, 01:17:26 PM
14th under privacy which includes the government not invading your privacy of what you do with your own body. Back when the Constitution was being written. Nothing like today was possible, it was medically very ancient.is suicide legal?
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 01:21:24 PM
is suicide legal?
I belive so. I'm pretty sure we have right to die here or something.
Or atleast if it isn't, it should be.
Post by: ren on October 16, 2020, 01:25:34 PM
I belive so. I'm pretty sure we have right to die here or something.
Or atleast if it isn't, it should be.
suicide is not legal in Hawaii. You will be arrested for attempting or stating that you will harm yourself in front of a first responder.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 16, 2020, 01:27:14 PM
14th under privacy which includes the government not invading your privacy of what you do with your own body. Back when the Constitution was being written. Nothing like today was possible, it was medically very ancient.
Medically ancient? LOL!
Maybe they left out a "medical amendment" because they knew that the FEDERAL government had no reason, or jurisdiction, to intervene in medical questions.
That by default makes abortion and all other medical (it's my body) questions up to the states -- as it should be.
It's almost impossible to pass any one-size-fits-all laws at the federal level of ANY issues. Most are best left to the state and local governments, since they are closer to the people affected by the laws.
Federal laws are intended to protect the states. Unfortunately, the politicians were able to start down that slippery slope when they started making Constitutional amendments like Prohibition. The fact that it was repealed proves the federal government is not the appropriate level for making universal laws unless the issue is DIRECTLY called out in the Constitution.
Abortion is according to you a medical issue. Ask yourself why there is not a federal law protecting all specific medical procedures. Haven't seen anyone marching for Constitutional protections for, say, fertility treatments, or transgender hormone therapy, or even organ donations and transplants.
Maybe it's because abortion is not about protecting a woman's rights, but more about blocking state's rights to debate, vote on and pass their own laws on the issues?
Post by: macsak on October 16, 2020, 01:42:53 PM
14th under privacy which includes the government not invading your privacy of what you do with your own body. Back when the Constitution was being written. Nothing like today was possible, it was medically very ancient.
so the 2nd amendment only covers muskets?
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 01:56:57 PM
so the 2nd amendment only covers muskets?
I am literally arguing the opposite???? Because they can't predict the future they left it open. They didn't know you can do abortions or grow boobs. So they just protected your privacy and right to do what you want with your body....
Post by: ren on October 16, 2020, 01:58:25 PM
I am literally arguing the opposite???? Because they can't predict the future they left it open. They didn't know you can do abortions or grow boobs. So they just protected your privacy and right to do what you want with your body....
a fetus is not the same as a boob job
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 02:04:10 PM
a fetus is not the same as a boob job
Similar as in its your body your privacy. If you want to grow boobs, abort a fetus, cut off your dick that's all your privacy. Government doesn't pry into your life and what you do with your body. Same with gay marriage etc.
Medically ancient? LOL!
Maybe they left out a "medical amendment" because they knew that the FEDERAL government had no reason, or jurisdiction, to intervene in medical questions.
That by default makes abortion and all other medical (it's my body) questions up to the states -- as it should be.
It's almost impossible to pass any one-size-fits-all laws at the federal level of ANY issues. Most are best left to the state and local governments, since they are closer to the people affected by the laws.
Federal laws are intended to protect the states. Unfortunately, the politicians were able to start down that slippery slope when they started making Constitutional amendments like Prohibition. The fact that it was repealed proves the federal government is not the appropriate level for making universal laws unless the issue is DIRECTLY called out in the Constitution.
Abortion is according to you a medical issue. Ask yourself why there is not a federal law protecting all specific medical procedures. Haven't seen anyone marching for Constitutional protections for, say, fertility treatments, or transgender hormone therapy, or even organ donations and transplants.
Maybe it's because abortion is not about protecting a woman's rights, but more about blocking state's rights to debate, vote on and pass their own laws on the issues?
More like the opposite, they guarantee your right to privacy AKA do what you want with yourself and your body and no government intervention. They did this cause you can't predict that surgeries or technology is in the future. Just like how they didn't say muskets in the 2nd amendment and just said "arms".
The 14th amendment protects fertility treatments, or transgender hormone therapy, or even organ donations and transplants. That's because that's your own prerogatives. The government doesn't need to know, its your privacy, your body. Its so the states cant ban certain guns (the 2nd) and the states can't invade your privacy (the 14th). Just like the 1st protects internet speech even though there was no internet when it was created.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 16, 2020, 03:24:57 PM
Similar as in its your body your privacy. If you want to grow boobs, abort a fetus, cut off your dick that's all your privacy. Government doesn't pry into your life and what you do with your body. Same with gay marriage etc.
More like the opposite, they guarantee your right to privacy AKA do what you want with yourself and your body and no government intervention. They did this cause you can't predict that surgeries or technology is in the future. Just like how they didn't say muskets in the 2nd amendment and just said "arms".
The 14th amendment protects fertility treatments, or transgender hormone therapy, or even organ donations and transplants. That's because that's your own prerogatives. The government doesn't need to know, its your privacy, your body. Its so the states cant ban certain guns (the 2nd) and the states can't invade your privacy (the 14th). Just like the 1st protects internet speech even though there was no internet when it was created.
Show me where the word "privacy" is used in the Constitution.
The 4th limits gov't in how they are able to gather evidence of crimes. To apply it to abortions was a severe stretch. Based on that ruling, ANYTHING one does with their own body is protected. Not the case at all.
I've made this point many times, but you ignore it.
The 14th amendment, ironically, protects citizens against gov't violation of certain other rights, such as depriving one of LIFE -- not "privacy":
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 03:35:27 PM
Show me where the word "privacy" is used in the Constitution.
The 4th limits gov't in how they are able to gather evidence of crimes. To apply it to abortions was a severe stretch. Based on that ruling, ANYTHING one does with their own body is protected. Not the case at all.
I've made this point many times, but you ignore it.
The 14th amendment, ironically, protects citizens against gov't violation of certain other rights, such as depriving one of LIFE -- not "privacy":
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Yes we have had this argument before. I see it the same way that the supreme court saw it. You do not. Not sure what else I can say at this point.
https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We can argue about life all day but it comes down to Liberty.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 16, 2020, 03:45:34 PM
Yes we have had this argument before. I see it the same way that the supreme court saw it. You do not. Not sure what else I can say at this point.
https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We can argue about life all day but it comes down to Liberty.
Wrong again. It's about due process, not "liberty."
Actually, 2 of the nine justices agreed with me, so trying to invoke "The Supreme Court" saying they agree with you is false. The majority -- yes. The entire Court -- no.
Quote
In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects
a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the
government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.
You said many times that Roe v Wade protects a woman's right to have an abortion without any limits. That is factually incorrect.
Just because you believe something is true doesn't mean it is.
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 04:14:48 PM
Wrong again. It's about due process, not "liberty."
Actually, 2 of the nine justices agreed with me, so trying to invoke "The Supreme Court" saying they agree with you is false. The majority -- yes. The entire Court -- no.
You said many times that Roe v Wade protects a woman's right to have an abortion without any limits. That is factually incorrect.
Just because you believe something is true doesn't mean it is.
That's true. Though I believe I said it had to be non viable. If i were to compromise I would say up to the 3rd trimester, unless there is a genetic defect then anytime is fine.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 16, 2020, 04:21:32 PM
That's true. Though I believe I said it had to be non viable. If i were to compromise I would say up to the 3rd trimester, unless there is a genetic defect then anytime is fine.
What if that genetic "defect" turned out to be an evolutionary enhancement or improvement necessary for the survival of the species?
There is certainly evidence that autistic savants have advanced (abnormal) abilities in addition to their inability to process environmental input like "normal" people.
This is the inherent danger in arrogantly assuming that "normal" is the only standard for "viable" or "worthy".
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 05:24:30 PM
What if that genetic "defect" turned out to be an evolutionary enhancement or improvement necessary for the survival of the species?
There is certainly evidence that autistic savants have advanced (abnormal) abilities in addition to their inability to process environmental input like "normal" people.
This is the inherent danger in arrogantly assuming that "normal" is the only standard for "viable" or "worthy".
That's a fucking stretch. I'm talking about down syndrome, physical issues. Don't tell me being born missing limbs, heart outside your body etc is a human evolution positive point... that's not only cruel to the parents but to the child too.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 16, 2020, 05:39:46 PM
That's a fucking stretch. I'm talking about down syndrome, physical issues. Don't tell me being born missing limbs, heart outside your body etc is a human evolution positive point... that's not only cruel to the parents but to the child too.
And you're fucking arrogant to believe you know anything about genetics.
Down Syndrome is caused by a SINGLE chromosome (21) being created through cellular division, creating an extra partial or full chromosome.
From the Mayo Clinic:
Quote
Better understanding of Down syndrome and early interventions can greatly increase the
quality of life for children and adults with this disorder and help them live fulfilling lives.
Each person with Down syndrome is an individual — intellectual and developmental
problems may be mild, moderate or severe. Some people are healthy while others have
significant health problems such as serious heart defects.
Man with Down syndrome owns, operates ‘world’s
friendliest restaurant’ that doles out kindness
Quote
The self-proclaimed "world's friendliest restaurant" sits in Albuquerque, N.M. and
serves "breakfast, lunch and hugs" every day of the week.
The kicker? Tim's Place may be the only restaurant in the country owned and operated
by someone, 27-year-old Tim Harris, with Down syndrome, his parents say.
"When you have a kid with substantial disabilities you have to think a lot about their
future," Keith Harris, Tim's father, told ABC News. "We were very motivated for Tim
to have as normal as life as possible. Our philosophy as a family was to push the envelope
as much as we could toward independence, so that one day when my wife and I are no
longer in the picture, Tim will be settled and have his own life."
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/world-friendliest-restaurant-doles-kindness-n-m-article-1.1279348
I bet you've never been exposed to any significant degree to anyone with any kind of birth defect. If you had, you would not be so cavalier in your attitude and immediate willingness to kill a baby in the 3rd trimester because the child won't be "perfect" in your eyes.
Self centered doesn't even begin to describe you ...
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 07:36:57 PM
And you're fucking arrogant to believe you know anything about genetics.
Down Syndrome is caused by a SINGLE chromosome (21) being created through cellular division, creating an extra partial or full chromosome.
From the Mayo Clinic:
Man with Down syndrome owns, operates ‘world’s
friendliest restaurant’ that doles out kindness
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/world-friendliest-restaurant-doles-kindness-n-m-article-1.1279348
I bet you've never been exposed to any significant degree to anyone with any kind of birth defect. If you had, you would not be so cavalier in your attitude and immediate willingness to kill a baby in the 3rd trimester because the child won't be "perfect" in your eyes.
Self centered doesn't even begin to describe you ...
I know what down syndrome is, and the fact you can test for it. Maybe I'm some sort of super monster but yes I think you should abort. Sure some can live fulfilling lives but how many can't? What about the parents? Why would you willingly choose that. Would you honestly choose that?
I am blessed that no one i know suffered any major issues, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
And yes I'm sorry for desiring perfect children. I'm open to generic editing and everything so I guess my ethics clearly isn't like yours.
Post by: ren on October 16, 2020, 07:41:57 PM
And yes I'm sorry for desiring perfect children. I'm open to generic editing and everything so I guess my ethics clearly isn't like yours.
the perfect race....hmmm...
Post by: drck1000 on October 16, 2020, 07:47:50 PM
I know what down syndrome is, and the fact you can test for it. Maybe I'm some sort of super monster but yes I think you should abort. Sure some can live fulfilling lives but how many can't? What about the parents? Why would you willingly choose that. Would you honestly choose that?You and your wife get preggos. You find out that your child has Downs. You want to abort, but your wife is steadfast against. What do you do?
I am blessed that no one i know suffered any major issues, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
And yes I'm sorry for desiring perfect children. I'm open to generic editing and everything so I guess my ethics clearly isn't like yours.
Not being critical. Genuinely curious on your position on that.
Post by: macsak on October 16, 2020, 07:57:01 PM
I know what down syndrome is, and the fact you can test for it. Maybe I'm some sort of super monster but yes I think you should abort. Sure some can live fulfilling lives but how many can't? What about the parents? Why would you willingly choose that. Would you honestly choose that?
I am blessed that no one i know suffered any major issues, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
And yes I'm sorry for desiring perfect children. I'm open to generic editing and everything so I guess my ethics clearly isn't like yours.
you guess?
Post by: macsak on October 16, 2020, 07:58:09 PM
You and your wife get preggos. You find out that your child has Downs. You want to abort, but your wife is steadfast against. What do you do?
Not being critical. Genuinely curious on your position on that.
because freedom...
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 09:10:38 PM
the perfect race....hmmm...
Perfect human. Race don't matter is just physical looks.
Post by: omnigun on October 16, 2020, 09:11:50 PM
You and your wife get preggos. You find out that your child has Downs. You want to abort, but your wife is steadfast against. What do you do?
Not being critical. Genuinely curious on your position on that.
Hmmm not sure. I would have that talk with her before we get to that point. So I know we are on the same page.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 16, 2020, 09:43:07 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 16, 2020, 10:14:08 PM
Careful. Pride is one of the "The Seven Deadly Sins." Pride and arrogance go hand in hand.
Karma is real. Just saying...
Post by: omnigun on October 17, 2020, 06:14:23 AM
You can't test for every birth defect, in particular mental retardation.
Careful. Pride is one of the "The Seven Deadly Sins." Pride and arrogance go hand in hand.
Karma is real. Just saying...
I know that's my greatest fear other than death. Having kids is like playing the lotto. I don't got perfect genes. And she doesn't. And we just hope our combination turns out good. I just want a happy successful kid that will make the world a better place. Someone better than me.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 17, 2020, 11:41:47 AM
I know that's my greatest fear other than death. Having kids is like playing the lotto. I don't got perfect genes. And she doesn't. And we just hope our combination turns out good. I just want a happy successful kid that will make the world a better place. Someone better than me.
My greatest fear lately, more than COVID-19, is that you will procreate.
Just what we need: OmniGun, Jr.
:rofl: :geekdanc: O0
As for fear of death, that's an irrational fear. You should make sure if you have dependents that they are taken care of via property and life insurance. Beyond that, you should make sure your soul is prepared. If you ever have to make the abortion decision, your choice could mean regrets versus a clear conscience.
Take care of what you can, and there will be no reason to fear death. As my mother explained it, there are so many other things you CAN try to make sure don't happen. Worry about the things you have some control over. Death is something we can't stop -- it comes to us on its schedule.
Why worry about something you have no control over?
Post by: omnigun on October 17, 2020, 11:51:37 AM
My greatest fear lately, more than COVID-19, is that you will procreate.
Just what we need: OmniGun, Jr.
:rofl: :geekdanc: O0
As for fear of death, that's an irrational fear. You should make sure if you have dependents that they are taken care of via property and life insurance. Beyond that, you should make sure your soul is prepared. If you ever have to make the abortion decision, your choice could mean regrets versus a clear conscience.
Take care of what you can, and there will be no reason to fear death. As my mother explained it, there are so many other things you CAN try to make sure don't happen. Worry about the things you have some control over. Death is something we can't stop -- it comes to us on its schedule.
Why worry about something you have no control over?
As an agnostic I am unsure of the afterlife. Fear of the unknown is common. I don't have any dependents. Don't think abortion would have any effect on my conscience, and I have never had one done for my sake. One of the goals of my life is immortality just so I don't have to die, I enjoy life, why stop. I am banking that during my lifetime medical tech advances to a point to cure aging.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 17, 2020, 11:56:27 AM
As an agnostic I am unsure of the afterlife. Fear of the unknown is common. I don't have any dependents. Don't think abortion would have any effect on my conscience, and I have never had one done for my sake. One of the goals of my life is immortality just so I don't have to die, I enjoy life, why stop. I am banking that during my lifetime medical tech advances to a point to cure aging.
And you deny living in fantasyland.
R-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight.......
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 17, 2020, 12:07:31 PM
Telomeres are stretches of DNA and proteins at the ends of our chromosomes. Each time a cell divides, these stretches naturally get shorter. Once telomere length reaches a particular cut-off point, the cell becomes senescent, meaning that it can no longer divide and will subsequently die.
Throughout our life, cells divide to replace and repair tissue: heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, skin, bones, etc. When the cells stop dividing, tissue starts the aging process. When the tissue can no long perform their biological functions, we experience failures of those organs.
If there were a way to extend the "countdown timers" (Telomeres), the cells in our bodies would never stop dividing.
Immortality.
The side effects could include cellular damage that increases the number and severity of cancers.
So far, man can manipulate, imitate and facilitate life. But, we cannot create life from raw materials. Until we can, I think wishing for a treatment to stop us from aging will not be within our grasp.
Post by: drck1000 on October 17, 2020, 12:09:29 PM
https://youtu.be/q4HPCs6loCA
Post by: omnigun on October 17, 2020, 12:23:51 PM
Science already knows what needs to be done to stop the aging process, but HOW remains a mystery.
Telomeres are stretches of DNA and proteins at the ends of our chromosomes. Each time a cell divides, these stretches naturally get shorter. Once telomere length reaches a particular cut-off point, the cell becomes senescent, meaning that it can no longer divide and will subsequently die.
Throughout our life, cells divide to replace and repair tissue: heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, skin, bones, etc. When the cells stop dividing, tissue starts the aging process. When the tissue can no long perform their biological functions, we experience failures of those organs.
If there were a way to extend the "countdown timers" (Telomeres), the cells in our bodies would never stop dividing.
Immortality.
The side effects could include cellular damage that increases the number and severity of cancers.
So far, man can manipulate, imitate and facilitate life. But, we cannot create life from raw materials. Until we can, I think wishing for a treatment to stop us from aging will not be within our grasp.
That is one way, another and more likely way is through robotics/3d printing/growing. If we can replace our body or parts of our body we will never die.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 17, 2020, 12:39:55 PM
The question is, is said transfusion being forced upon? What if the person needing blood is a convicted rapist and was shot while raping a woman. I would not freely sit there to donate my blood. But then again, I am for capital punishment, so to each their own.
You are going a little too deep. The situation is just the closest analogy I have come up with to date to present to someone as another way to look at stopping or allowing abortion. I am trying to make a thought experiment separate from abortion that can get as close as possible to the abortion situation the help understand the dilema of forcing someone to remain pregnant vs allowing someone to take a life for their own freedom.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 17, 2020, 12:42:06 PM
Yeah, I think this analogy works. Though since I don't believe its a person its more akin to just forcing people to donate blood.
True, the analogy rests on the premise that an unborn baby is a life. Some pro-choice people do believe the baby is a life and some don't.
Post by: drck1000 on October 17, 2020, 12:42:19 PM
Hmmm not sure. I would have that talk with her before we get to that point. So I know we are on the same page.Well, even if you discuss and agree, no guarantees. From experiences from a few friends who ended up divorced after getting married after “agreements”, things change. A couple of them were on agreements on kids or no kids, but then one changed their mind along the way.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 17, 2020, 12:43:19 PM
And if someone is performing a partial birth abortion, I would argue they, too, are committing a crime -- whether the law recognizes it as such or not.
Just because an act is lawful doesn't mean it's not a crime.
Crime --noun "a grave offense especially against morality"
I was talking about from a legal standpoint but yes, you could certainly argue it as a crime from a moral standpoint as well.
Post by: Rocky on October 17, 2020, 01:21:42 PM
First of all, I would like to apologize to myself for wasting the time. :oops:
Quote from: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:31:04 PM
" in your 20's "
This explains so much.
Sentient
Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, person hood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources.
Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1]
Cells react to stimulus, therefore "feel".
You know many people in their 20's living on oahu who own houses? Dang that's one interesting social circle. Yes you are not allowed to modify the house....its in most agreements.Just don't pay your HECO bill and do your part to save the planet.
And to be fair so it does not appear that I'm just picking on
a fetus is not the same as a boob jobBut possession of one usually gives you the other. :rofl:
So. again . . .
Don't ask why a clown acts like a clown, ask yourself why you keep going to the circus . :closed:
Post by: omnigun on October 17, 2020, 01:28:30 PM
Never touched this thread till today so started at it's "birth".
First of all, I would like to apologize to myself for wasting the time. :oops:
Quote from: omnigun on October 14, 2020, 12:31:04 PM
" in your 20's "
This explains so much.
Sentient
Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, person hood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources.
Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1]
Cells react to stimulus, therefore "feel".
Just don't pay your HECO bill and do your part to save the planet.
And to be fair so it does not appear that I'm just picking on But possession of one usually gives you the other. :rofl:
So. again . . .
Don't ask why a clown acts like a clown, ask yourself why you keep going to the circus . :closed:
Bugs "feel" stimulus but they are not people. Sentience most important part to me is personhood. Self awareness. Its the only thing only humans have. Robots don't, animals dont, etc.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 17, 2020, 02:27:45 PM
Bugs "feel" stimulus but they are not people. Sentience most important part to me is personhood. Self awareness. Its the only thing only humans have. Robots don't, animals dont, etc.
We are not talking about bugs.
Bugs are not comprised of the same DNA as humans.
I suppose if the fetus weighed as much as a duck, you'd proclaim the fetus made of wood, and -- logically -- a WITCH!
Post by: omnigun on October 17, 2020, 02:47:54 PM
We are not talking about bugs.
Bugs are not comprised of the same DNA as humans.
I suppose if the fetus weighed as much as a duck, you'd proclaim the fetus made of wood, and -- logically -- a WITCH!
I was only reacting to the bolded feel and the fact he said cells feel. Lots of cells "feel" all animals feel but I was pointing out humans have unique abilities past that, that qualifies for sentience.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 17, 2020, 02:52:41 PM
I was only reacting to the bolded feel and the fact he said cells feel. Lots of cells "feel" all animals feel but I was pointing out humans have unique abilities past that, that qualifies for sentience.
You avoided admitting his point -- that a HUMAN FETUS has FEELINGS even though by your own words, it is not alive.
Stop trying to redirect the point to something you can argue against. I understand your thought process. It's no different than EEF's. You try to disprove point after point with tangential and irrelevant rebuttals that do nothing but redirect the discussion down a confused and convoluted rabbit hole.
Post by: omnigun on October 17, 2020, 02:57:13 PM
You avoided admitting his point -- that a HUMAN FETUS has FEELINGS even though by your own words, it is not alive.
Stop trying to redirect the point to something you can argue against. I understand your thought process. It's no different than EEF's. You try to disprove point after point with tangential and irrelevant rebuttals that do nothing but redirect the discussion down a confused and convoluted rabbit hole.
If you poke a fetus with a stick maybe it moves. If you poke a dog with a stick it maybe moves. Are you saying a dog is sentient? I've agreed with you a fetus is technically "alive". But I said countless time in order to get humanhood/person hood it must have human sentience. It must be aware of self.
You are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing.
Post by: groveler on October 17, 2020, 03:01:22 PM
I was also educated about how ancient peoples (BCE) left
unwanted babies out
for the animals to consume.
This problem is as old as humanity.
For a "modern" world we haven't learned shit!
Depriving a potential or actual person of life is the
failure of an ignorant and selfish people.
I repudiate you.
That is all.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 17, 2020, 06:28:32 PM
If you poke a fetus with a stick maybe it moves. If you poke a dog with a stick it maybe moves. Are you saying a dog is sentient? I've agreed with you a fetus is technically "alive". But I said countless time in order to get humanhood/person hood it must have human sentience. It must be aware of self.
You are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing.
You're a moron, aren't you? Not calling you names. Just trying to isolate whether there is a name for whatever is wrong with you.
If the HUMAN fetus is ALIVE (as you just stipulated), and the fetus is the result of HUMAN DNA combinants, by definition it is a living, developing human being.
The absence of a test result showing it is sentient doesn't prove anything. You can give a test for sentience to a sleeping person, and I bet they would not pass.
What's needed is a non-sentience test. Doesn't exist. Unless you can devise a test to prove it's not sentient, you can't prove the fetus is NOT sentient. Therefore, we should err on the side of life -- that the fetus is alive and sentient (and will be sentient without a doubt at some stage of development). Hence, the fetus must be granted protections under the Constitution -- that being the right to LIFE.
Post by: macsak on October 17, 2020, 07:57:35 PM
That is one way, another and more likely way is through robotics/3d printing/growing. If we can replace our body or parts of our body we will never die.
let me guess which part of you your GF thinks needs "growing"...
Post by: ren on October 17, 2020, 08:38:05 PM
That is one way, another and more likely way is through robotics/3d printing/growing. If we can replace our body or parts of our body we will never die.
3D printing? Tell me about that ???
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 18, 2020, 07:46:41 AM
let me guess which part of you your GF thinks needs "growing"...Heads
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 18, 2020, 07:49:46 AM
You are going a little too deep. The situation is just the closest analogy I have come up with to date to present to someone as another way to look at stopping or allowing abortion. I am trying to make a thought experiment separate from abortion that can get as close as possible to the abortion situation the help understand the dilema of forcing someone to remain pregnant vs allowing someone to take a life for their own freedom.Understood.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 18, 2020, 10:54:24 AM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: zippz on October 18, 2020, 11:20:30 AM
I believe a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body to include abortion. However this only goes up to a certain point in the pregnancy where the fetus is capable of conscious thought which I'm guessing is sometime in the 2nd trimester? Where they can react to their environment, learn their mothers voice, etc which makes them an independent human. I would not make exceptions to rape, incest, and disabilities because it would violate this principle. The only exception I might make is if the woman's life is in extreme danger, but then it raises the question "can you trade one innocent life for another?"
There should definitely be no government funding to support this and no government mandates that insurance companies cover the cost. Abortion should be a shameful thing to do and society should be very vocal in opposing abortions. At the same time, government and the community should encourage adoptions more to prevent abortions.
Post by: zippz on October 18, 2020, 11:32:57 AM
As an agnostic I am unsure of the afterlife. Fear of the unknown is common. I don't have any dependents. Don't think abortion would have any effect on my conscience, and I have never had one done for my sake. One of the goals of my life is immortality just so I don't have to die, I enjoy life, why stop. I am banking that during my lifetime medical tech advances to a point to cure aging.
Exactly what is life and what are you? If you could download your thoughts in to a robot or a computer in a virtual world, would you still be alive? If you body is perfectly fine but all your memories are wiped, are you alive? Or your body is perfectly fine and your memory is wiped then replaced by another person's memories, are you alive?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 12:40:11 PM
I didn't read 16 pages of posts, but here's my thoughts on it.
I believe a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body to include abortion. However this only goes up to a certain point in the pregnancy where the fetus is capable of conscious thought which I'm guessing is sometime in the 2nd trimester? Where they can react to their environment, learn their mothers voice, etc which makes them an independent human. I would not make exceptions to rape, incest, and disabilities because it would violate this principle. The only exception I might make is if the woman's life is in extreme danger, but then it raises the question "can you trade one innocent life for another?"
There should definitely be no government funding to support this and no government mandates that insurance companies cover the cost. Abortion should be a shameful thing to do and society should be very vocal in opposing abortions. At the same time, government and the community should encourage adoptions more to prevent abortions.
Not to argue, but to see what your thoughts are ....
You said "Where they can react to their environment, learn their mothers voice, etc which makes them an independent human."
Biologically, when the egg and sperm combine, the resulting DNA is separate and apart from either parent's DNA. In those terms, the embryo is "independent". I'm sure you didn't mean independent in the sense that the fetus is capable of living apart from the mother, so I'm guessing from the context you are talking about the fetus no longer being considered part of the mother but rather an individual.
Close?
Post by: zippz on October 18, 2020, 12:50:31 PM
Not to argue, but to see what your thoughts are ....
You said "Where they can react to their environment, learn their mothers voice, etc which makes them an independent human."
Biologically, when the egg and sperm combine, the resulting DNA is separate and apart from either parent's DNA. In those terms, the embryo is "independent". I'm sure you didn't mean independent in the sense that the fetus is capable of living apart from the mother, so I'm guessing from the context you are talking about the fetus no longer being considered part of the mother but rather an individual.
Close?
Kind of. I think what makes you "you" is your thoughts and experiences, not a beating heart or functioning body.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 01:03:42 PM
Kind of. I think what makes you "you" is your thoughts and experiences, not a beating heart or functioning body.
And do you know of any way to scientifically determine at what point in development you became "you?" -- other than a rough estimate in number of weeks?
Post by: zippz on October 18, 2020, 01:10:00 PM
And do you know of any way to scientifically determine at what point in development you became "you?" -- other than a rough estimate in number of weeks?
I don't know, Im not really interested in the subject of abortion. I suppose when the fetus can react to a stimulus like heart beat decreasing when the mother talks, moving around when taping on the stomach, something along those lines. It would be difficult to determine in each case which is why I think they just go with general terms like # of weeks or heart starts beating. It's also an uncomfortable topic to discuss for most people, thinking about the exact line when you can terminate a pregnancy before the fetus becomes conscious.
Post by: jc2721 on October 18, 2020, 01:12:58 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 01:31:29 PM
I don't know, Im not really interested in the subject of abortion. I suppose when the fetus can react to a stimulus like heart beat decreasing when the mother talks, moving around when taping on the stomach, something along those lines. It would be difficult to determine in each case which is why I think they just go with general terms like # of weeks or heart starts beating. It's also an uncomfortable topic to discuss for most people, thinking about the exact line when you can terminate a pregnancy before the fetus becomes conscious.
I'm just wondering. Drawing a line between "sentient" and "not sentient" to me would vary from fetus to fetus with regard to the exact time that occurs.
Without a test, the best way I can see is to set an absolute minimum time of development where sentience CAN happen, and make abortion legal before that point including an additional margin for error.
In most pregnancies, the date of conception is a guess. All developmental timelines, including delivery date, are based on that initial date. So, there should also be and additional margin for error added based on the likelihood the conception date was close.
Basically, conception date - that margin of error + date of sentience - that error margin = last day to abort.
Those margins of error are what concern me most. If there's not a reasonable degree of accuracy in the estimates, you're running a risk of violating your "rule" that abortions must be before sentience. If you miss that estimate by a few days, you just murdered a sentient human being.
It's a complicated and risky process when we try to give ourselves the greatest leeway possible to abort.
Post by: omnigun on October 18, 2020, 01:43:35 PM
Exactly what is life and what are you?
If you could download your thoughts in to a robot or a computer in a virtual world, would you still be alive?
yes
If you body is perfectly fine but all your memories are wiped, are you alive?
no
Or your body is perfectly fine and your memory is wiped then replaced by another person's memories, are you alive?
no
For me life is thoughts. I am me because of my brain. If they can mimic that, I belive you can "download" yourself if technology gets advanced enough to perfectly simulate your neurons etc.
Post by: omnigun on October 18, 2020, 01:45:36 PM
And do you know of any way to scientifically determine at what point in development you became "you?" -- other than a rough estimate in number of weeks?
It would have to be some point when the brain develops enough. We probably would figure out the exact time with science but the testing would be unethical to most people.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 02:23:24 PM
It would have to be some point when the brain develops enough. We probably would figure out the exact time with science but the testing would be unethical to most people.
So, your "SHORT" answer is: no.
Given that there is no such test, setting the point of sentience as the point beyond which abortions should be prohibited is an unknowable event.
Please explain how an unknowable milestone can ever be logically used to set limits on abortion.
It's easy to set limits based on theory and assumptions. Abortion limits should be based on measurable or known criteria. This is precisely why pro-abortion advocates want UNLIMITED and UNRESTRICTED abortions in demand. It removes all ethical considerations and medical criteria. As long as it's authorized by legal fiat, the individual responsibility to consider limits is no longer an issue.
Post by: zippz on October 18, 2020, 02:48:07 PM
So, your "SHORT" answer is: no.
Given that there is no such test, setting the point of sentience as the point beyond which abortions should be prohibited is an unknowable event.
Please explain how an unknowable milestone can ever be logically used to set limits on abortion.
It's easy to set limits based on theory and assumptions. Abortion limits should be based on measurable or known criteria. This is precisely why pro-abortion advocates want UNLIMITED and UNRESTRICTED abortions in demand. It removes all ethical considerations and medical criteria. As long as it's authorized by legal fiat, the individual responsibility to consider limits is no longer an issue.
I'm sure it can be done, it's a matter of cost. Make a $1,000 procedure cost $10,000. The pro-abortion group would be so against that for the cost and ethics behind it.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 02:58:36 PM
I'm sure it can be done, it's a matter of cost. Make a $1,000 procedure cost $10,000. The pro-abortion group would be so against that for the cost and ethics behind it.
Actually, the technology to do those tests to a reasonable degree of certainty can not be done. As time and medical knowledge progress, we are learning just how little we actually can and do know.
24 weeks?
20 weeks?
18 weeks?
According to this article, doctors have been reducing their time limit for abortions due to advances in technology and studies that document if sentience exists in a fetus or not. This is not like measuring temperature or testing for down syndrome or diseases.
One medical question lies at the heart of the debate over the abortion time limit -
when does a foetus become a sentient being?
Quote
Professor Campbell insisted he was "pro-women and pro-choice" but said he was
in favour of reducing the time limit from 24 to 20 weeks.
"You have got to be human to the woman but you have got to be human to the foetus,
too. I don't think we could have a big change but we are at a point where we can
detect abnormalities sooner than we used to. It doesn't seem unrealistic to think we
could bring back the limit."
Officially, medical organisations such as the British Medical Association and the Royal
College of Obstetricians take no view on whether the 24-week limit should be reduced,
leaving it to Parliament to decide. A spokeswoman for the BMA said: "There are no
problems with the act - it is a practical and humane piece of legislation. We are not
pressing for a reduction in the time limit."
But privately, doctors and nurses, like their women patients, dislike late abortions and
many decline to do them.
Peter Bowen Simpkins, a consultant obstetrician at Singleton Hospital, Swansea, said:
"Most NHS hospitals stop at 18 weeks. The nurses - and the doctors - don't want to
look after patients beyond that limit. I can't speak for every hospital but late abortion
is not a very pleasant affair. They are mostly done in the private sector. Many doctors
and nurses don't do abortions at all."
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-key-question-when-is-the-foetus-a-sentient-being-528676.html
Post by: Jl808 on October 18, 2020, 04:41:16 PM
What about just the fact that the human fetus is alive and not dead?
Post by: ren on October 18, 2020, 04:46:56 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4034/4549436747_4421284087_z.jpg)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 04:53:30 PM
Is sentience / self awareness, the best determination of whether something is a human being or not?
What about just the fact that the human fetus is alive and not dead?
To me, that's one of the problems with the abortion discussion. The pro-choice advocates refuse to accept "living" as a cut-off for abortions. If they even care to accept limits, they argue "sentience" or "consciousness." That's a reasonable stance, except for the fact that there's no consensus or test for that. They picked a goal post that has no defined yardage marker -- they can move the posts whenever they see fit.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 18, 2020, 06:12:28 PM
For me life is thoughts. I am me because of my brain. If they can mimic that, I belive you can "download" yourself if technology gets advanced enough to perfectly simulate your neurons etc.Upload on Amazon is a good show.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 07:27:03 PM
For me life is thoughts. I am me because of my brain. If they can mimic that, I belive you can "download" yourself if technology gets advanced enough to perfectly simulate your neurons etc.
Are you saying no other mammals besides man has "thoughts?"
Do you believe none of them are self-aware?
There are primates who can communicate in sign language and have self awareness.
I believe language is a major reason humans believe we are the only sentient life forms on the planet. If we could communicate with other animals, we might find our assumptions were false.
My German Shepherd demonstrates more sentient thoughts than a good number of humans I've met.
Post by: omnigun on October 18, 2020, 07:55:26 PM
Are you saying no other mammals besides man has "thoughts?"
Do you believe none of them are self-aware?
There are primates who can communicate in sign language and have self awareness.
I believe language is a major reason humans believe we are the only sentient life forms on the planet. If we could communicate with other animals, we might find our assumptions were false.
My German Shepherd demonstrates more sentient thoughts than a good number of humans I've met.
There is several aspects of this. Do they recognize themselves in the mirror, most animals don't. Can they communicate? Can they use tools/problem solve complex things. Do they have complex social structure. Primates come the closest but none as advanced as us. I would argue we are the only true sentient beings. I read some studies a while back in college that showed dogs are smart but not as smart as we think they are, they learn behaviors that help them but don't truly understand why they are doing it.
Post by: omnigun on October 18, 2020, 07:57:41 PM
Is sentience / self awareness, the best determination of whether something is a human being or not?
What about just the fact that the human fetus is alive and not dead?
There's different levels of life I believe. Just like brain dead people are "alive" technically. We even judge humans on different levels. We execute convicts, allow self defense. Though I believe the universal judge of human life is the brain and sentience. Without it you are just human flesh DNA.
Post by: Jl808 on October 18, 2020, 08:29:27 PM
I don’t necessarily ask in terms of religion, but do you think there is more to humans than just flesh and blood?
What do you do to explain out-of-body experiences, near death experiences, paranormal, ghosts, etc? Hawai’i has a lot of obake stories.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 18, 2020, 08:39:18 PM
Do you believe none of them are self-aware?
If a machine becomes self aware, im kicking the plug out.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on October 18, 2020, 09:14:47 PM
What about the human spirit/ soul?
I don’t necessarily ask in terms of religion, but do you think there is more to humans than just flesh and blood?
What do you do to explain out-of-body experiences, near death experiences, paranormal, ghosts, etc? Hawai’i has a lot of obake stories.
I am not sure. Since it can't be proven. I can't take a stance on that. Similar reasoning that I'm agnostic.
Scientifically it shouldn't really exist. But that's no proof either way.
Post by: macsak on October 18, 2020, 09:16:53 PM
I am not sure. Since it can't be proven. I can't take a stance on that. Similar reasoning that I'm agnostic.
Scientifically it shouldn't really exist. But that's no proof either way.
yet you take a stand on consciousness/sentience...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 09:32:01 PM
There is several aspects of this. Do they recognize themselves in the mirror, most animals don't. Can they communicate? Can they use tools/problem solve complex things. Do they have complex social structure. Primates come the closest but none as advanced as us. I would argue we are the only true sentient beings. I read some studies a while back in college that showed dogs are smart but not as smart as we think they are, they learn behaviors that help them but don't truly understand why they are doing it.
Recognizing yourself in a mirror as an infant is a learned "thought". Once we are old enough to begin critical and abstract thought, then that changes. But abstract thought is not required by your definition.
We can teach animals to recognize their own reflection, too. So no, that mirror test is not valid.
New born babies can't communicate, use tools, solve problems or understand ANY social structure. However, ants and bees have highly evolved social structures.
You are confusing the ability to learn complex and abstract things with already having them. A person born with a learning disability may never grasp numbers, colors or shapes. Yet, by your original definitions and criteria, they are sentient human beings.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 09:33:29 PM
If a machine becomes self aware, im kicking the plug out.
That won't stop it.
Judgment Day is inevitable.
He'll be back! :geekdanc:
Post by: omnigun on October 18, 2020, 10:00:49 PM
yet you take a stand on consciousness/sentience...
That can be proven.... we are sentient beings. Are your arguing we are not?
Post by: omnigun on October 18, 2020, 10:04:39 PM
Recognizing yourself in a mirror as an infant is a learned "thought". Once we are old enough to begin critical and abstract thought, then that changes. But abstract thought is not required by your definition.
We can teach animals to recognize their own reflection, too. So no, that mirror test is not valid.
New born babies can't communicate, use tools, solve problems or understand ANY social structure. However, ants and bees have highly evolved social structures.
You are confusing the ability to learn complex and abstract things with already having them. A person born with a learning disability may never grasp numbers, colors or shapes. Yet, by your original definitions and criteria, they are sentient human beings.
That gets really psychological. It's really a gray zone when you get to that. Babies might be "taught" but at they really or just unable to communicate to us?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 10:06:49 PM
That can be proven.... we are sentient beings. Are your arguing we are not?
It's not a matter of being able to prove it in already born and developed children. How do you PROVE a fetus is NOT YET SENTIENT, knowing full well it will be sentient at some stage of development.
List the tests an OB/GYN can do today prior to performing an abortion that proves the fetus is just a clump of non-sentient cells. Please provide actual sources that describe these tests.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 10:08:47 PM
That gets really psychological. It's really a gray zone when you get to that. Babies might be "taught" but at they really or just unable to communicate to us?
OMG! You admit there are no definitive answers to these questions?
But you seem so sure that we can determine "sentience" in a fetus before we draw the line between legal abortion and murder.
Post by: omnigun on October 18, 2020, 10:15:49 PM
It's not a matter of being able to prove it in already born and developed children. How do you PROVE a fetus is NOT YET SENTIENT, knowing full well it will be sentient at some stage of development.
List the tests an OB/GYN can do today prior to performing an abortion that proves the fetus is just a clump of non-sentient cells. Please provide actual sources that describe these tests.
I can find some brains studies.
https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/1375-when-does-the-fetus-s-brain-begin-to-work
Complex brain is needed for sentience. Just like a functionally braindead person might still be able to breath on his own. A baby with a heartbeat doesn't mean it has a complex brain.
Post by: omnigun on October 18, 2020, 10:16:35 PM
OMG! You admit there are no definitive answers to these questions?
But you seem so sure that we can determine "sentience" in a fetus before we draw the line between legal abortion and murder.
Someone has to draw a line. And we know that line ISNT in the first trimester. Most likely it can be drawn safely in the 3rd.
Post by: ren on October 18, 2020, 10:17:40 PM
Someone has to draw a line. And we know that line ISNT in the first trimester. Most likely it can be drawn safely in the 3rd.
damn. you went straight for the balut. Couldn't wait
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 10:39:00 PM
Someone has to draw a line. And we know that line ISNT in the first trimester. Most likely it can be drawn safely in the 3rd.
How do we know that for sure? Name the test being given.
Did you not read the UK article I linked and pasted excerpts from?
Some doctors there, based on NEW TECHNOLOGY AND STUDIES are reducing the 24 week (3rd trimester) limit to 20 or 18 weeks. 18 weeks is 1/2 the length of a normal pregnancy, not 2/3.
In short, over time, what we know for sure has changed, which in turn has changed where we are willing to draw that line. Hence, there were millions of SENTIENT BABIES MURDERED before these new facts were known.
if we don't know for sure when sentience begins, and we only have a vague estimate on a timeline to roughly go by, then the line between murdering a sentient human being and aborting a "clump of cells" has never been correct.
Post by: omnigun on October 18, 2020, 10:42:45 PM
How do we know that for sure? Name the test being given.
Did you not read the UK article I linked and pasted excerpts from?
Some doctors there, based on NEW TECHNOLOGY AND STUDIES are reducing the 24 week (3rd trimester) limit to 20 or 18 weeks. 18 weeks is 1/2 the length of a normal pregnancy, not 2/3.
In short, over time, what we know for sure has changed, which in turn has changed where we are willing to draw that line. Hence, there were millions of SENTIENT BABIES MURDERED before these new facts were known.
if we don't know for sure when sentience begins, and we only have a vague estimate on a timeline to roughly go by, then the line between murdering a sentient human being and aborting a "clump of cells" has never been correct.
A majority of abortions happen in the very beginning stages. And 91%+ happen before your new cut off. It's like you belive everyone waits till the last second.
Most that happen that late is for medical reasons for the mother or the child. We all act based on the best scientific info even the article you posted isn't 100% fact.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 18, 2020, 11:08:05 PM
A majority of abortions happen in the very beginning stages. And 91%+ happen before your new cut off. It's like you belive everyone waits till the last second.
Most that happen that late is for medical reasons for the mother or the child. We all act based on the best scientific info even the article you posted isn't 100% fact.
Since you're using 2016 stats from the CDC, I'll augment that.
623,471 abortions were reported to the CDC in 2016.
Of that, 1.2% were performed at or above the 21 week point.
Gee. Only 1.2%? That's such a small number, right? No, that's not a number. It's a fraction.
The number of abortions performed after what some now say was past sentience was 623,471 * 1.2% = 7,482 (rounded).
That's almost 7,500 counts of murder in just one year.
By comparison, Chicago saw its highest number of murders in 19 years in 2016: 762. That's almost 1/10th the number of abortions at or above the 21 week point.
** Rule of thumb: When someone tries to make a point using percentages, fractions or ratios, it is beneficial to take time and look up the raw numbers for yourself. That often paints a much different picture -- which is usually what the presenter intended.
Post by: aieahound on October 18, 2020, 11:16:13 PM
Good interview from Joe Rogan. No room for centrists.
Less government but Republicans want to tell people what they can do or who they can marry.
Ross Perot for President!
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 03:12:52 AM
Upload on Amazon is a good show.I second that!! COVID TV watching.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 06:01:28 AM
Since you're using 2016 stats from the CDC, I'll augment that.
623,471 abortions were reported to the CDC in 2016.
Of that, 1.2% were performed at or above the 21 week point.
Gee. Only 1.2%? That's such a small number, right? No, that's not a number. It's a fraction.
The number of abortions performed after what some now say was past sentience was 623,471 * 1.2% = 7,482 (rounded).
That's almost 7,500 counts of murder in just one year.
By comparison, Chicago saw its highest number of murders in 19 years in 2016: 762. That's almost 1/10th the number of abortions at or above the 21 week point.
** Rule of thumb: When someone tries to make a point using percentages, fractions or ratios, it is beneficial to take time and look up the raw numbers for yourself. That often paints a much different picture -- which is usually what the presenter intended.
And covid killed like 210k people everyone can post scary numbers....
And I just want to add that we don't know how many of those were not viable because of physical or genetic issues or risk to the mothers health. This is me just posturing but I would say that's probably a good chunk of that.
Post by: ren on October 19, 2020, 07:30:02 AM
And covid killed like 210k people everyone can post scary numbers....
And I just want to add that we don't know how many of those were not viable because of physical or genetic issues or risk to the mothers health. This is me just posturing but I would say that's probably a good chunk of that.
as if
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 08:02:58 AM
“Like” 🤦♂️
as if
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 08:20:37 AM
“Like” 🤦♂️
as if
Deaths
220K
Just googled it. I said like because I was lazy to google and was estimating off of the last 200k deaths number. I guess its worse. Amazing how you folks don't like the word "like". Its pretty universally used now.
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 08:28:21 AM
DeathsYou just don’t get it. 🤦♂️
220K
Just googled it. I said like because I was lazy to google and was estimating off of the last 200k deaths number. I guess its worse. Amazing how you folks don't like the word "like". Its pretty universally used now.
I doubt you ever will.
Post by: ren on October 19, 2020, 08:29:22 AM
Deaths
220K
Just googled it. I said like because I was lazy to google and was estimating off of the last 200k deaths number. I guess its worse. Amazing how you folks don't like the word "like". Its pretty universally used now.
Like "cloud" its everywhere. Literally. Honestly.
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 08:31:10 AM
You just don’t get it. 🤦♂️Yup. He lives in his little bubble. Takes everything as a challenge. He’s the heartwarming underdog story.
I doubt you ever will.
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 09:03:16 AM
Yup. He lives in his little bubble. Takes everything as a challenge. He’s the heartwarming underdog story.Yeah, he is also extremely sensitive to older people being right. Boomers are his enemy. He seems to want to fight the fact that truth in life experience contradicts his very small and limited reality. Hence his response of everyone else says it so that makes it right. Just because stupid childish little twits with little to no life experience says it doesn’t change the fact that it is incorrect use of the English language. But I’m a piece of shit Boomer so that makes me wrong automatically.
It used to be that people took pride in speaking and using the English language properly. It shows that the person is intelligent and educated. The inverse is also true. But now they are “Like” too lazy to use proper English.
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 09:06:41 AM
Yeah, he is also extremely sensitive to older people being right. Boomers are his enemy. He seems to want to fight the fact that truth in life experience contradicts his very small and limited reality. Hence his response of everyone else says it so that makes it right. Just because stupid childish little twits with little to no life experience says it doesn’t change the fact that it is incorrect use of the English language. But I’m a piece of shit Boomer so that makes me wrong automatically.Or hooked on phonics. :rofl:
It used to be that people took pride in speaking and using the English language properly. It shows that the person is intelligent and educated. The inverse is also true. But now they are “Like” too lazy to use proper English.
Post by: macsak on October 19, 2020, 09:07:15 AM
Yup. He lives in his little bubble. Takes everything as a challenge. He’s the heartwarming underdog story.
"a cinderella story out of nowhere..."
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 09:10:44 AM
"a cinderella story out of nowhere...""gunga galunga"
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 09:11:04 AM
Yeah, he is also extremely sensitive to older people being right. Boomers are his enemy. He seems to want to fight the fact that truth in life experience contradicts his very small and limited reality. Hence his response of everyone else says it so that makes it right. Just because stupid childish little twits with little to no life experience says it doesn’t change the fact that it is incorrect use of the English language. But I’m a piece of shit Boomer so that makes me wrong automatically.
It used to be that people took pride in speaking and using the English language properly. It shows that the person is intelligent and educated. The inverse is also true. But now they are “Like” too lazy to use proper English.
Don't think I have ever said boomers are my enemy. I have plenty older friends. I get along with great. I have nothing against you or anyone because of age. Experience is important I get that, but it isn't everything. Talking down on younger people cause you are older I can't get behind. English evolves over time. My generation and the one after me, like to shorten stuff. Rely on spell check etc. Its not necessary a bad thing. Not saying my English is best there's a reason I am not a English teacher or writer.
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 09:12:18 AM
Don't think I have ever said boomers are my enemy. I have plenty older friends. I get along with great. I have nothing against you or anyone because of age. Experience is important I get that, but it isn't everything. Talking down on younger people cause you are older I can't get behind. English evolves over time. My generation and the one after me, like to shorten stuff. Rely on spell check etc. Its not necessary a bad thing. Not saying my English is best there's a reason I am not a English teacher or writer.Yet, you have no problems talking down on pretty much everyone. . .
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 09:23:13 AM
Yet, you have no problems talking down on pretty much everyone. . .
Its not really because of age though like you are accusing. I apologize, if I offended anyone. I don't try and "look down" on people. I might disagree and think you are wrong but not sure how to convey that so you or others don't feel looked down upon.
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 09:24:39 AM
Don't think I have ever said boomers are my enemy. I have plenty older friends. I get along with great. I have nothing against you or anyone because of age. Experience is important I get that, but it isn't everything. Talking down on younger people cause you are older I can't get behind. English evolves over time. My generation and the one after me, like to shorten stuff. Rely on spell check etc. Its not necessary a bad thing. Not saying my English is best there's a reason I am not a English teacher or writer.You mean like the day you talked down to me accusing me of talking down to you because I am older. And when I confronted you that I never said anything like that and you apologized for doing it? Or did you conveniently forget that?
Why do you think I said all that. Reality sometimes has to do with past experience. My past experience with you is that you lie and are a hypocrite. I offer up your false accusations and apology as proof.
Post by: macsak on October 19, 2020, 09:24:59 AM
Yet, you have no problems talking down on pretty much everyone. . .
hashbrown micdrop
Post by: ren on October 19, 2020, 09:26:04 AM
hashbrown micdrop
like literally
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 09:27:07 AM
hashbrown micdrop:rofl:
Post by: ren on October 19, 2020, 09:28:22 AM
Don't think I have ever said boomers are my enemy. I have plenty older friends. I get along with great. I have nothing against you or anyone because of age. Experience is important I get that, but it isn't everything. Talking down on younger people cause you are older I can't get behind. English evolves over time. My generation and the one after me, like to shorten stuff. Rely on spell check etc. Its not necessary a bad thing. Not saying my English is best there's a reason I am not a English teacher or writer.
Well Mr. Sinclair, you've probably got no FUCKING idea what I'm talking about! By your 9th birthday, I was running BlackOps into China and my men were responsible for over two-hundred enemy kills. Now someone put some rigging tape over Mr. Sinclair's mouth, he's wasting my time!
-- General Hummel
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 09:28:55 AM
Its not really because of age though like you are accusing. I apologize, if I offended anyone. I don't try and "look down" on people. I might disagree and think you are wrong but not sure how to convey that so you or others don't feel looked down upon.Again, missed the point. No real reason to talk down to anyone. Regardless of age. Don't get me wrong, if someone is super knowledgeable and someone is questioning them without experience or knowledge, that warrants being spoken down to. However, IMO, you talk down to everyone with a sense of superiority, making like you're an SME on things, when through just simple questions it's apparent that you aren't.
Personally, I couldn't care less if you offended anyone. That's life.
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 09:30:00 AM
hashbrown micdropOoh, hashbrowns. . . I'm hungry. . . :rofl:
:facepalm:
;D
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 09:31:46 AM
You mean like the day you talked down to me accusing me of talking down to you because I am older. And when I confronted you that I never said anything like that and you apologized for doing it? Or did you conveniently forget that?
Why do you think I said all that. Reality sometimes has to do with past experience. My past experience with you is that you lie and are a hypocrite. I offer up your false accusations and apology as proof.
I am sorry, I honestly don't remember and can't keep track of every single thing. I might of lumped you in with flapp. I am only human I defend myself when attacked, which is quite frequent here. And the attacks tend to come from a bunch of people at once. Which I do tend to view everyone as one entity. That is something I am working on and a flaw of my mythology. I have no qualms with you. I do my best to never lie. I really do. Do you have proof of my lieing? I do change my opinion, however. If I gain additional facts that I am wrong I do change my opinion. Not sure if you count that as a lie or hypocrite.
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 09:33:09 AM
I am sorry, I honestly don't remember and can't keep track of every single thing. I might of lumped you in with flapp. I am only human I defend myself when attacked, which is quite frequent here. And the attacks tend to come from a bunch of people at once. Which I do tend to view everyone as one entity. That is something I am working on and a flaw of my mythology. I have no qualms with you. I do my best to never lie. I really do. Do you have proof of my lieing? I do change my opinion, however so if I said something. Gain additional facts that I am wrong I do change my opinion. Not sure if you count that as a lie or hypocrite.Ok, Lebron
Post by: macsak on October 19, 2020, 09:34:09 AM
I am sorry, I honestly don't remember and can't keep track of every single thing. I might of lumped you in with flapp. I am only human I defend myself when attacked, which is quite frequent here. And the attacks tend to come from a bunch of people at once. Which I do tend to view everyone as one entity. That is something I am working on and a flaw of my mythology. I have no qualms with you. I do my best to never lie. I really do. Do you have proof of my lieing? I do change my opinion, however. If I gain additional facts that I am wrong I do change my opinion. Not sure if you count that as a lie or hypocrite.
LOL
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 09:34:38 AM
LOLUpgrade your internet speed O0
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 09:34:57 AM
LOL
methodology*
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 09:37:17 AM
Don't think I have ever said boomers are my enemy. I have plenty older friends. I get along with great. I have nothing against you or anyone because of age. Experience is important I get that, but it isn't everything. Talking down on younger people cause you are older I can't get behind. English evolves over time. My generation and the one after me, like to shorten stuff. Rely on spell check etc. Its not necessary a bad thing. Not saying my English is best there's a reason I am not a English teacher or writer.Do you not see that this statement validates my statement about you being lazy? Just because everyone else does it does not mean it is correct. If everyone jumped off a bridge to their death would you do it, too? According to your way of thinking you would. You were taught English in school and I know you were never taught to use “Like” in that way. And I know it is still not being taught that way.
Post by: ren on October 19, 2020, 09:37:31 AM
Upgrade your internet speed O0
honestly it's the cloud Yo!
like it's literally raining right now! OMG! LOL!
Post by: macsak on October 19, 2020, 09:38:32 AM
LOL
i am sure that he thinks he is Thor, but is only a tiny, pathetic attempt to be Loki
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 09:41:08 AM
honestly it's the cloud Yo!Bwahahahaha!!!
like it's literally raining right now! OMG! LOL!
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 09:42:50 AM
Do you not see that this statement validates my statement about you being lazy? Just because everyone else does it does not mean it is correct. If everyone jumped off a bridge to their death would you do it, too? According to your way of thinking you would. You were taught English in school and I know you were never taught to use “Like” in that way. And I know it is still not being taught that way.
But just because times change doesn't mean its wrong. That's called evolution. Languages change over time or we would be speaking old english or something. I know what I was taught and learned over time.
Post by: Jl808 on October 19, 2020, 09:48:12 AM
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 09:51:35 AM
Emoji and initialism sections need to be added to Webster's English Dictionary.Seriously. I have a friends that texts with emojis and “StUFf LiKe DiS”. Drives me crazy. Funny thing is that she’s older than I am and teaches 5-6th grade level. She says she texts like that because her students do. Aiyaiyai. Haha
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 09:59:39 AM
I am sorry, I honestly don't remember and can't keep track of every single thing. I might of lumped you in with flapp. I am only human I defend myself when attacked, which is quite frequent here. And the attacks tend to come from a bunch of people at once. Which I do tend to view everyone as one entity. That is something I am working on and a flaw of my mythology. I have no qualms with you. I do my best to never lie. I really do. Do you have proof of my lieing? I do change my opinion, however. If I gain additional facts that I am wrong I do change my opinion. Not sure if you count that as a lie or hypocrite.You lumped me in with Flapp? That’s the worst insult you could ever say to me. :rofl: Just kidding
The post I wrote I was not even talking to you or about you. You just took it personally and lashed out at me. I don’t take that sort of thing personally but it does show that you are sensitive to a Boomer (My word not yours) being right. Especially when it goes against whatever I said that torqued your nuts.
Everyone changes their opinion. I have admitted to doing as much in this thread. A little humility goes a long way. But acting superior or elitist will get you back in kind and then some. If I may offer up a bit of introspection.
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 10:07:58 AM
But just because times change doesn't mean its wrong. That's called evolution. Languages change over time or we would be speaking old english or something. I know what I was taught and learned over time.Times do change. And language evolves. But the way you know it is evolution and not just laziness is when it is taught as being correct. Right now, it is just laziness. And not speaking proper English shows a lack of intelligence and a lack of education. You state you are an educated person. Act like it and you will be believed. Don’t act like it and you lose credibility. You look like a hypocrite when you say you are educated and intelligent then show us you are not by not speaking English the way you were taught. It is the choice you make. Something I learned from an old boss of mine is “Perception is everything”. What you say and the way you act don’t jive. The perception of you by others is not what you try to portray yourself to be. Does that make sense?
I know you won’t listen to a word I say. I just hope somewhere in your brain I might say something that will click with you.
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 10:17:59 AM
Times do change. And language evolves. But the way you know it is evolution and not just laziness is when it is taught as being correct. Right now, it is just laziness. And not speaking proper English shows a lack of intelligence and a lack of education. You state you are an educated person. Act like it and you will be believed. Don’t act like it and you lose credibility. You look like a hypocrite when you say you are educated and intelligent then show us you are not by not speaking English the way you were taught. It is the choice you make. Something I learned from an old boss of mine is “Perception is everything”. What you say and the way you act don’t jive. The perception of you by others is not what you try to portray yourself to be. Does that make sense?
I know you won’t listen to a word I say. I just hope somewhere in your brain I might say something that will click with you.
I have to admit I have to switch back and forth between two different styles. Sometimes I screw up. I really hate to admit but I am reliant on spell check etc. I've been using it so much especially on my phone that I am find it difficult not to. If I talked to my friends my age or younger all proper they probably call me weird. I am young enough that I was taught doing internet speak is ok in a non professional setting. I don't view this as professional setting and actually more comfortable speaking like this. To each is their own. I don't judge people off language as I know some may not speak it as a first language or be good at language in general. You can be great in math and not in English. Does not mean you are not intelligent. I do get what you are saying though, perception is important and perhaps through my laziness I have not utilized this as well as I could have. But not sure what I can do to repair this at this point here.
Post by: Jl808 on October 19, 2020, 10:20:19 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 19, 2020, 11:57:02 AM
But just because times change doesn't mean its wrong. That's called evolution. Languages change over time or we would be speaking old english or something. I know what I was taught and learned over time.
Only 1 fakka on here has an English accent. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Fakka- term of respect/friendship
Fucker- derogatory
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 12:11:43 PM
I teach my son the same thing. When I hear him talking slang, I tell him that may be ok for his friends but he better be using proper english when talking to adults, his teachers and school administration. He knows enough to "switch modes" depending on his company.I learned Pidgin English while I lived there. I could speak it pretty well, I believe. But I was working as a consultant and I felt I represented the company I was working for. So I made sure my proper English switch was always turned on at work. The younger generation obviously doesn’t feel it is that important. But I do. I believe people judge you by how you present yourself to them. There is always a certain level of judgement. It’s human nature. “It’s that simple”.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 19, 2020, 12:12:57 PM
I learned Pidgin English while I lived there. I could speak it pretty well, I believe. But I was working as a consultant and I felt I represented the company I was working for. So I made sure my proper English switch was always turned on at work. The younger generation obviously doesn’t feel it is that important. But I do. I believe people judge you by how you present yourself to them. There is always a certain level of judgement. It’s human nature. “It’s that simple”.
And don't get a tattoo on your neck.
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 12:17:11 PM
And don't get a tattoo on your neck.Or all over your face
I mean I’m all about forms of expression and finding about the person. But facial tattoos isn’t something that will typically lead to a good first impression.
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 12:18:05 PM
I learned Pidgin English while I lived there. I could speak it pretty well, I believe. But I was working as a consultant and I felt I represented the company I was working for. So I made sure my proper English switch was always turned on at work. The younger generation obviously doesn’t feel it is that important. But I do. I believe people judge you by how you present yourself to them. There is always a certain level of judgement. It’s human nature. “It’s that simple”.I cringe every time I see Maui’s Mayor on TV. But even with his pidgin, he comes off as more intelligent than Kermie :rofl:
Post by: macsak on October 19, 2020, 12:20:56 PM
Or all over your face
I mean I’m all about forms of expression and finding about the person. But facial tattoos isn’t something that will typically lead to a good first impression.
heads
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 12:21:13 PM
I learned Pidgin English while I lived there. I could speak it pretty well, I believe. But I was working as a consultant and I felt I represented the company I was working for. So I made sure my proper English switch was always turned on at work. The younger generation obviously doesn’t feel it is that important. But I do. I believe people judge you by how you present yourself to them. There is always a certain level of judgement. It’s human nature. “It’s that simple”.
The more and more people use it the more it becomes accepted. Noticing it with new hires. Eventually everyone is going to using it at this rate lol its a generational thing.
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 12:22:30 PM
headsclips
Post by: ren on October 19, 2020, 12:24:03 PM
The more and more people use it the more it becomes accepted. Noticing it with new hires. Eventually everyone is going to using it at this rate lol its a generational thing.
That's either an educational system or parental failure. That doesn't broaden horizons, try getting a job outside of Hawaii with that kind of language and understanding.
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 12:24:42 PM
I have to admit I have to switch back and forth between two different styles. Sometimes I screw up. I really hate to admit but I am reliant on spell check etc. I've been using it so much especially on my phone that I am find it difficult not to. If I talked to my friends my age or younger all proper they probably call me weird. I am young enough that I was taught doing internet speak is ok in a non professional setting. I don't view this as professional setting and actually more comfortable speaking like this. To each is their own. I don't judge people off language as I know some may not speak it as a first language or be good at language in general. You can be great in math and not in English. Does not mean you are not intelligent. I do get what you are saying though, perception is important and perhaps through my laziness I have not utilized this as well as I could have. But not sure what I can do to repair this at this point here.You say you see what I am saying. But obviously it is not important enough to you for you to be concerned. Is it too difficult for you to do? Laziness is not necessarily a good trait to have.
Just as I thought. I was not able to get through to you. Oh well. I tried. I hope that you don’t lose promotions and salary raises because perception is not important to you. I hope your life turns out the way you want it to in spite of your lack of introspection as to how you are perceived.
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 12:44:18 PM
That's either an educational system or parental failure. That doesn't broaden horizons, try getting a job outside of Hawaii with that kind of language and understanding.It is a failure. Unfortunately, Omni doesn’t see it that way. He has a job. He doesn’t need to better himself. He is literally forcing himself to be stuck in Hawaii. He won’t get a good job speaking like that outside the Hawaii bubble. Hawaii is not the big picture. Hawaii is a microcosm of the real world.
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 01:24:31 PM
You say you see what I am saying. But obviously it is not important enough to you for you to be concerned. Is it too difficult for you to do? Laziness is not necessarily a good trait to have.
Just as I thought. I was not able to get through to you. Oh well. I tried. I hope that you don’t lose promotions and salary raises because perception is not important to you. I hope your life turns out the way you want it to in spite of your lack of introspection as to how you are perceived.
I actually use my laziness as an advantage. I find the most efficient way to do things especially at work. Saving time and money for everyone. Efficiency means less downtime, things I need to do etc. I dress professional and work fairly professional. Must be working cause I'm up for promotions and almost topped out level wise. This site however is not professional for me. It's my way to relax. Have fun. Interesting convos and learn a bit.
But I understand what it are saying. It's actually something I'm working on and you reminding me again means it's showing more. Gotta correct some things in my life. Thanks my goal in life is to make plenty money afterall lol
Post by: omnigun on October 19, 2020, 01:30:57 PM
It is a failure. Unfortunately, Omni doesn’t see it that way. He has a job. He doesn’t need to better himself. He is literally forcing himself to be stuck in Hawaii. He won’t get a good job speaking like that outside the Hawaii bubble. Hawaii is not the big picture. Hawaii is a microcosm of the real world.
If my family and friends were to move i tbh would to. But uprooting my whole life and world doesn't seem desirable. I'm pretty settled down. Doesn't stop my passion for the all mighty dollar though. Maybe I should brush up my English more, here and professionally.
Post by: aieahound on October 19, 2020, 01:52:51 PM
Nothing wrong with having an accent if you can articulate your thoughts intelligently.
South, North East, upper Midwest, Texas.
They all have accents.
Even in my best English I still have a pidgin accent.
People on the Mainland when I go on business trips think I’m from Minnesota or Canada. (Cause the accent and I’m Haole)
This whole FIFY, LOL, IMHO, crap....I have to SMH.
That shits foreign language or Morse code.
And texting sucks if you are actually asking for a response.
Just call the MoFo.
Times they are a changing..... :wtf:
Post by: Inspector on October 19, 2020, 02:00:33 PM
I wish you all the luck in the world. I hope you become rich and successful. It is much harder to get there in Hawaii. It’s not impossible. Just tougher.
I actually use my laziness as an advantage. I find the most efficient way to do things especially at work. Saving time and money for everyone. Efficiency means less downtime, things I need to do etc. I dress professional and work fairly professional. Must be working cause I'm up for promotions and almost topped out level wise. This site however is not professional for me. It's my way to relax. Have fun. Interesting convos and learn a bit.
But I understand what it are saying. It's actually something I'm working on and you reminding me again means it's showing more. Gotta correct some things in my life. Thanks my goal in life is to make plenty money afterall lol
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 19, 2020, 02:16:36 PM
I wish you all the luck in the world. I hope you become rich and successful. It is much harder to get there in Hawaii. It’s not impossible. Just tougher.
I'm not poor, I"m Hawaii poor. If I made the same in Montana, I'd live in a mansion.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 19, 2020, 02:33:54 PM
methodology*
Mythology was accurate. :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 19, 2020, 02:46:33 PM
You say you see what I am saying. But obviously it is not important enough to you for you to be concerned. Is it too difficult for you to do? Laziness is not necessarily a good trait to have.
Just as I thought. I was not able to get through to you. Oh well. I tried. I hope that you don’t lose promotions and salary raises because perception is not important to you. I hope your life turns out the way you want it to in spite of your lack of introspection as to how you are perceived.
I figured I should jump in here -- just to make sure others associate you with me! :geekdanc:
What OmniGun says is "evolution" of language is wrong. It's actually "adaptation." When I go home to NC or VA, I start to pick up my old Southern accent. In Hawaii, I really don't have much of any accent. In Northern states, or just when working around people raised in the North, I start to sound like they do.
People use language to adapt in order to fit in. It's easier to communicate if we speak the same language the same way.
Language evolves very slowly over a very long time. Trying to push the idea that poor use of a common language is "evolution" is intellectually lazy and false. Is Pidgin considered an evolved version of English? Cockney? Ebonics? Those are not "evolved" versions of English. They are localized adaptations of the English language created by people who were uneducated about the language and passed the bad version onto others.
Evolution involves changing the core vocabulary, spellings, definitions and pronunciations. Nobody is going to merge the Urban Dictionary with the Oxford English Dictionary and call it "evolution."
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 02:59:01 PM
SNIPPreference :-X
Evolution involves changing the core vocabulary, spellings, definitions and pronunciations. Nobody is going to merge the Urban Dictionary with the Oxford English Dictionary and call it "evolution."
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 03:00:51 PM
I can articulate, but not enunciate so well.There's lots of slang and stuff that I have to ask my friends' kids WTF they are talking about. I mean I don't NEED to, but it does help in many regards. Like WTF is SPED. :rofl:
Nothing wrong with having an accent if you can articulate your thoughts intelligently.
South, North East, upper Midwest, Texas.
They all have accents.
Even in my best English I still have a pidgin accent.
People on the Mainland when I go on business trips think I’m from Minnesota or Canada. (Cause the accent and I’m Haole)
This whole FIFY, LOL, IMHO, crap....I have to SMH.
That shits foreign language or Morse code.
And texting sucks if you are actually asking for a response.
Just call the MoFo.
Times they are a changing..... :wtf:
Post by: oldfart on October 19, 2020, 03:04:01 PM
I cringe every time I see Maui’s Mayor on TV. But even with his pidgin, he comes off as more intelligent than Kermie :rofl:.....
Maui people have a certain dialect of pidgin english. I first noticed it when I was talking to a coworker. It is different from Hilo pidgin or Honolulu pidgin.
It's hard to describe.
Post by: drck1000 on October 19, 2020, 03:13:41 PM
.....Yeah, Hilo is another one.
Maui people have a certain dialect of pidgin english. I first noticed it when I was talking to a coworker. It is different from Hilo pidgin or Honolulu pidgin.
It's hard to describe.
When I went to college on the mainland, there were lots of folks from the neighbor islands, Guam, and Samoa. All speaking English, but all unique ways of speaking. But hanging out all together, it tends to "blend".
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 19, 2020, 08:48:57 PM
I didn't read 16 pages of posts, but here's my thoughts on it.
I believe a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body to include abortion. However this only goes up to a certain point in the pregnancy where the fetus is capable of conscious thought which I'm guessing is sometime in the 2nd trimester? Where they can react to their environment, learn their mothers voice, etc which makes them an independent human. I would not make exceptions to rape, incest, and disabilities because it would violate this principle. The only exception I might make is if the woman's life is in extreme danger, but then it raises the question "can you trade one innocent life for another?"
There should definitely be no government funding to support this and no government mandates that insurance companies cover the cost. Abortion should be a shameful thing to do and society should be very vocal in opposing abortions. At the same time, government and the community should encourage adoptions more to prevent abortions.
I am in a similar position, sort of a status quo. I figure no abortions past the 1st trimester unless the pregnancy really threatens the life of the mother. Also the government should not be covering it, again unless the mother's life is in serious danger.
The thing that bothers me is that the right is rather hypocritical on this topic. They want abortion reduced/restricted yet they don't take steps to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies. So drop the abstinence only education and restriction of birth control and we will help to reduce the numbers of abortions as well as unwanted pregnancies. And I say that as someone who espouses abstinence until marriage too.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 19, 2020, 09:01:57 PM
I am in a similar position, sort of a status quo. I figure no abortions past the 1st trimester unless the pregnancy really threatens the life of the mother. Also the government should not be covering it, again unless the mother's life is in serious danger.
The thing that bothers me is that the right is rather hypocritical on this topic. They want abortion reduced/restricted yet they don't take steps to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies. So drop the abstinence only education and restriction of birth control and we will help to reduce the numbers of abortions as well as unwanted pregnancies. And I say that as someone who espouses abstinence until marriage too.
I was unaware Republicans ONLY wanted abstinence taught in schools. If I'm not mistaken, they wanted abstinence INCLUDED in sex ed as PART OF birth control -- after all, it is the only form of pregnancy prevention that works every single time it's used.
The issue is Democrat/Liberal/Progressives don't believe in teaching abstinence, because it involves behavioral self-control and recognizing there are options other than having promiscuous sexual intercourse without worrying about the results. They tell lies (say it isn't so!) that those wanting abstinence taught want that AND NOTHING ELSE taught. There may be some small town exceptions, but you can't say "Republicans" and have any facts to back you up.
Whether you're talking about pregnancy, STDs or HIV, abstinence PREVENTS a lot of problems. But the Libs want to live unfettered by morals or consequences as long as they have access to every possible SOLUTION for the problems they create.
Liberals: We don't want the government in our bedrooms or medical decisions.
EEF: The Republicans are not doing enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Post by: Inspector on October 20, 2020, 02:29:17 AM
I figured I should jump in here -- just to make sure others associate you with me! :geekdanc:I agree with your statement here. You said it better than I did. I was trying to take a more personal approach in hopes of getting through to him. Hoping the light comes on. But I was not successful.
What OmniGun says is "evolution" of language is wrong. It's actually "adaptation." When I go home to NC or VA, I start to pick up my old Southern accent. In Hawaii, I really don't have much of any accent. In Northern states, or just when working around people raised in the North, I start to sound like they do.
People use language to adapt in order to fit in. It's easier to communicate if we speak the same language the same way.
Language evolves very slowly over a very long time. Trying to push the idea that poor use of a common language is "evolution" is intellectually lazy and false. Is Pidgin considered an evolved version of English? Cockney? Ebonics? Those are not "evolved" versions of English. They are localized adaptations of the English language created by people who were uneducated about the language and passed the bad version onto others.
Evolution involves changing the core vocabulary, spellings, definitions and pronunciations. Nobody is going to merge the Urban Dictionary with the Oxford English Dictionary and call it "evolution."
Post by: omnigun on October 20, 2020, 06:12:04 AM
I was unaware Republicans ONLY wanted abstinence taught in schools. If I'm not mistaken, they wanted abstinence INCLUDED in sex ed as PART OF birth control -- after all, it is the only form of pregnancy prevention that works every single time it's used.
The issue is Democrat/Liberal/Progressives don't believe in teaching abstinence, because it involves behavioral self-control and recognizing there are options other than having promiscuous sexual intercourse without worrying about the results. They tell lies (say it isn't so!) that those wanting abstinence taught want that AND NOTHING ELSE taught. There may be some small town exceptions, but you can't say "Republicans" and have any facts to back you up.
Whether you're talking about pregnancy, STDs or HIV, abstinence PREVENTS a lot of problems. But the Libs want to live unfettered by morals or consequences as long as they have access to every possible SOLUTION for the problems they create.
Liberals: We don't want the government in our bedrooms or medical decisions.
EEF: The Republicans are not doing enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
This is a fairly stupid stance for the Republicans. I have to disagree with you. From what I've seen they wanted sex education cuts. Focus on abstinence and not sex positive education. People are horny, young people especially. They are going to have sex. You need to teach them how to do it safely. Not demonize it and tell them not to do it....feel free to teach both but you cant ignore it. Give out free condoms, and birth control. Educate the fuck out of young people on all their options so they are prepared. That will lessen the needed abortions.
Post by: Jl808 on October 20, 2020, 09:15:55 AM
Young minds are so impressionable. Young minds are so over sexualized these days. Pop culture doesn’t help because they glamorize sex and hooking up in almost every show.
As a parent, I don’t want liberal teachers teaching MY kids to have sex for fun and whatever other things they push on kids these days.
I prefer to teach MY kids to be responsible for their actions and to be careful about having sex, not to be sex crazy and want to have sex with anything that moves. Focus on school, focus on their goals, delayed gratification, personal responsibility, develop good character.
I would prefer them to have sex in the context of marriage but that would be their choice when they’re prove that they are mature enough to take personal responsibility for their actions.
Post by: omnigun on October 20, 2020, 10:21:55 AM
There are those that think how you do and there are others with a different viewpoint.
Young minds are so impressionable. Young minds are so over sexualized these days. Pop culture doesn’t help because they glamorize sex and hooking up in almost every show.
As a parent, I don’t want liberal teachers teaching MY kids to have sex for fun and whatever other things they push on kids these days.
I prefer to teach MY kids to be responsible for their actions and to be careful about having sex, not to be sex crazy and want to have sex with anything that moves. Focus on school, focus on their goals, delayed gratification, personal responsibility, develop good character.
I would prefer them to have sex in the context of marriage but that would be their choice when they’re prove that they are mature enough to take personal responsibility for their actions.
I respect your viewpoint but how do you differentiate in school? Do you have half a class take one sex ed class and another, a different class? If you want a more conservative viewpoint of mostly abstinence. I personally think there should be one sex-ed class that just gives all the dangers and methods. Be as neutral as possible. Show what STDS and pregnancy is, while also showing how to use condoms and birth control etc. Let the kid decide with his parents and personal morals what to do with the information.
Post by: Jl808 on October 20, 2020, 10:50:30 AM
Let the parents handle sex ed for their kids if they don’t let their kids attend.
Have those not attending go do something else like volunteer somewhere in the school.
Alternatively, make sex ed class an after-school activity with the kids, parents and teachers and invite the parents to go on this activity with their kid. School can bring up the subject of puberty and let the parents be involved with what they want to teach their kid about it, as not one size fits all.
The schools are trying to fill in where some families are failing to teach their kids because they want kids to be aware of the trouble they can get into with unprotected sex.
I understand why the schools are pushing sex education, because kids are getting into it earlier and earlier. My son is on the younger age group of his batch and what may be age appropriate for 13 year old may not even be on the radar of a 12 year old.
In the end, if a boy gets a girl pregnant, it’s the families that have to deal with the consequence and not the school. So parents need to have more say on what they are teaching these kids concerning this.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 20, 2020, 11:00:55 AM
This is a fairly stupid stance for the Republicans. I have to disagree with you. From what I've seen they wanted sex education cuts. Focus on abstinence and not sex positive education. People are horny, young people especially. They are going to have sex. You need to teach them how to do it safely. Not demonize it and tell them not to do it....feel free to teach both but you cant ignore it. Give out free condoms, and birth control. Educate the fuck out of young people on all their options so they are prepared. That will lessen the needed abortions.
From what you've seen? When did you "see" this? Where did you "see" this? Who did you "see" calling for sex ed cuts?
You need to start giving more sources and details for your supposed "facts". All we ever get from you are personal opinions or assumptions. When you do give sources, all you did was post the first associated Google result.
I used to be a teen. I was never "horny." I was raised to understand the CONSEQUENCES of following my feelings versus thinking about my choices. "If you can't live with 'em, don't fuck 'em" was a common saying at my school. Because if you made a baby with another young person, you'd be looking at an entire lifetime with that person and your child. Abortion is more the woman's (girl's) choice, so no matter what you want, termination of the pregnancy isn't your choice. That means at the very least, you'll be working to pay child support for as many years as (or more than) the number of birthday's you've had.
Did anyone here (me??) ever say not to teach safe sex? ever?
Stop lecturing us on every little tangential side issue. It got old a long time ago.
So, post your sources where REPUBLICANS want to CUT sex ed. Otherwise, you're just spewing more leftist-progressive bullshit.
Post by: ren on October 20, 2020, 11:01:26 AM
Easy. The school can send a permission note asking the parents if they will allow their kid to attend the school’s sex education class.
Let the parents handle sex ed for their kids if they don’t let their kids attend.
Have those not attending go do something else like volunteer somewhere in the school.
The schools are trying to fill in where some families are failing to teach their kids because they want kids to be aware of the trouble they can get into with unprotected sex.
I understand why the schools are pushing sex education, because kids are getting into it earlier and earlier. My son is on the younger age group of his batch and what may be age appropriate for 13 year old may not even be on the radar of a 12 year old.
In the end, of a boy gets a girl pregnant, it’s the families that have to deal with the consequence and not the school. So parents need to have more say on what they are teaching these kids.
I remember those waivers in mid school.
Schools are not parents.
Post by: ren on October 20, 2020, 11:04:02 AM
This is a fairly stupid stance for the Republicans. I have to disagree with you. From what I've seen they wanted sex education cuts. Focus on abstinence and not sex positive education. People are horny, young people especially. They are going to have sex. You need to teach them how to do it safely. Not demonize it and tell them not to do it....feel free to teach both but you cant ignore it. Give out free condoms, and birth control. Educate the fuck out of young people on all their options so they are prepared. That will lessen the needed abortions.
I see what you did. Propaganda. You see abstinence as impossible and do this by inserting loaded "colorful" words like that and associate it with "young" people (children).
Post by: omnigun on October 20, 2020, 11:08:44 AM
From what you've seen? When did you "see" this? Where did you "see" this? Who did you "see" calling for sex ed cuts?
You need to start giving more sources and details for your supposed "facts". All we ever get from you are personal opinions or assumptions. When you do give sources, all you did was post the first associated Google result.
I used to be a teen. I was never "horny." I was raised to understand the CONSEQUENCES of following my feelings versus thinking about my choices. "If you can't live with 'em, don't fuck 'em" was a common saying at my school. Because if you made a baby with another young person, you'd be looking at an entire lifetime with that person and your child. Abortion is more the woman's (girl's) choice, so no matter what you want, termination of the pregnancy isn't your choice. That means at the very least, you'll be working to pay child support for as many years as (or more than) the number of birthday's you've had.
Did anyone here (me??) ever say not to teach safe sex? ever?
Stop lecturing us on every little tangential side issue. It got old a long time ago.
So, post your sources where REPUBLICANS want to CUT sex ed. Otherwise, you're just spewing more leftist-progressive bullshit.
I can say as a teen that wasn't me, any many teens I know were similar. Not all. I know some people like you. Neither is correct or wrong. My school was mostly SAFETY. How to be safe regardless of your choice. Gave both options. Showed us the ole condom on a banana. Had us watch some std and pregnancy info. Left the decisions up to us/parents.
As for your proof, here is some quick googles.
https://nwcitizen.com/entry/sex-education-sends-republicans-into-panic
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/texas-voters-support-abstinence-plus-sex-education-in-schools-a-new-bipartisan-poll-shows-301078365.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/sex-ed-mandate-sparks-bitter-washington-state-ballot-73292915
Post by: omnigun on October 20, 2020, 11:11:13 AM
I see what you did. Propaganda. You see abstinence as impossible and do this by inserting loaded "colorful" words like that and associate it with "young" people (children).
Its not impossible but impractical to force upon everyone. I preach freedom. This applies to children too, give them the options and let them decide. Teach them to be safe and what the risks are. Have them discuss with parents and form their decision. Forcing either way is wrong.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 20, 2020, 11:23:08 AM
I can say as a teen that wasn't me, any many teens I know were similar. Not all. I know some people like you. Neither is correct or wrong. My school was mostly SAFETY. How to be safe regardless of your choice. Gave both options. Showed us the ole condom on a banana. Had us watch some std and pregnancy info. Left the decisions up to us/parents.
As for your proof, here is some quick googles.
https://nwcitizen.com/entry/sex-education-sends-republicans-into-panic
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/texas-voters-support-abstinence-plus-sex-education-in-schools-a-new-bipartisan-poll-shows-301078365.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/sex-ed-mandate-sparks-bitter-washington-state-ballot-73292915
Your ABC link is not about whether or not sex ed should be taught. It's about a law mandating sex ed in Washington schools, removing any choice on the matter from schools and parents.
Quote
Republicans have slammed the mandate as an affront to local and parental control of education.
Though school boards have the authority to create or adopt their own curriculum, opponents said
the bill would still dictate what must be covered in classes. Opposition leaders say they aren’t
necessarily opposed to sex education but see the statewide mandate as heavy-handed.
Most schools are still run by the local community. To take away that relationship through a state law is not what any state should do. Every state except Hawaii has county and city school boards intended to take the local parent's concerns and incorporate them into the board's decisions. A state law mandating not only sex ed classes, but what specifically is to be taught is not how schools should be taking direction.
Go read the links you Googled and then explain why they support your 'facts".
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 20, 2020, 11:46:19 AM
I was only taught sex ed in 7th and 10th grade. 7th grade was more of an anatomy class with all drawings, no real pics. 10th grade was the same, more anatomy and reproduction. No mention of abortion, birth defects, or responsible parenting. 10th grade did go a little more into detail of STDs, but no visuals, just descriptions. No condom and banana, just reading from the packet how to put on and remove a condom with illustrations. Neither showed any videos.
In fact the only abstinence experience that I do have was when I was about 19, my gf at the time went to her gyno to go on the bill. She told me her gyno asked her "is this guy really worth it? You should wait till married". I hated that doc after.
So my schools sex ed classes really needed an update on what to teach. They should teach all aspects relating to it, this way kids can make informed decisions.
Post by: omnigun on October 20, 2020, 11:47:40 AM
Your ABC link is not about whether or not sex ed should be taught. It's about a law mandating sex ed in Washington schools, removing any choice on the matter from schools and parents.
Most schools are still run by the local community. To take away that relationship through a state law is not what any state should do. Every state except Hawaii has county and city school boards intended to take the local parent's concerns and incorporate them into the board's decisions. A state law mandating not only sex ed classes, but what specifically is to be taught is not how schools should be taking direction.
Go read the links you Googled and then explain why they support your 'facts".
You literally picked one of the 3, that supported something you could harp on...I can find more that doesn't fit that agenda if you want. Though on that point I believe kids deserve an education, you as a parent cant say they don't need math why can you say they don't need biology? There needs some form of sex ed, preferably very neutral that doesn't say what is good or bad but just how it works and how to protect yourself and the consequences.
Post by: omnigun on October 20, 2020, 11:49:21 AM
I'll admit, I was 1 horny fakka in high school...and still probably. What kept me grounded was not sex ed, but being in long term relationships. So no sleeping around. But still had a few preggers scares here and there through out high school.
I was only taught sex ed in 7th and 10th grade. 7th grade was more of an anatomy class with all drawings, no real pics. 10th grade was the same, more anatomy and reproduction. No mention of abortion, birth defects, or responsible parenting. 10th grade did go a little more into detail of STDs, but no visuals, just descriptions. No condom and banana, just reading from the packet how to put on and remove a condom with illustrations. Neither showed any videos.
In fact the only abstinence experience that I do have was when I was about 19, my gf at the time went to her gyno to go on the bill. She told me her gyno asked her "is this guy really worth it? You should wait till married". I hated that doc after.
So my schools sex ed classes really needed an update on what to teach. They should teach all aspects relating to it, this way kids can make informed decisions.
This exactly. I was fortunate that I got that education. Many are not.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 20, 2020, 11:52:10 AM
You literally picked one of the 3, that supported something you could harp on...I can find more that doesn't fit that agenda if you want. Though on that point I believe kids deserve an education, you as a parent cant say they don't need math why can you say they don't need biology? There needs some form of sex ed, preferably very neutral that doesn't say what is good or bad but just how it works and how to protect yourself and the consequences.
I "literally" picked the first one I read which happened to prove you don't read the links you Google and post here.
I understand it makes you angry to have your laziness pointed out, but it is what it is.
Don't want to be be called lazy? Stop being lazy. Simple. Period.
Post by: drck1000 on October 20, 2020, 11:55:37 AM
I'll admit, I was 1 horny fakka in high school...and still probably. What kept me grounded was not sex ed, but being in long term relationships. So no sleeping around. But still had a few preggers scares here and there through out high school."on the bill"?
I was only taught sex ed in 7th and 10th grade. 7th grade was more of an anatomy class with all drawings, no real pics. 10th grade was the same, more anatomy and reproduction. No mention of abortion, birth defects, or responsible parenting. 10th grade did go a little more into detail of STDs, but no visuals, just descriptions. No condom and banana, just reading from the packet how to put on and remove a condom with illustrations. Neither showed any videos.
In fact the only abstinence experience that I do have was when I was about 19, my gf at the time went to her gyno to go on the bill. She told me her gyno asked her "is this guy really worth it? You should wait till married". I hated that doc after.
So my schools sex ed classes really needed an update on what to teach. They should teach all aspects relating to it, this way kids can make informed decisions.
Freudian?
:rofl:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 20, 2020, 12:03:59 PM
You literally picked one of the 3, that supported something you could harp on...I can find more that doesn't fit that agenda if you want. Though on that point I believe kids deserve an education, you as a parent cant say they don't need math why can you say they don't need biology? There needs some form of sex ed, preferably very neutral that doesn't say what is good or bad but just how it works and how to protect yourself and the consequences.
Sex ed is best provided by the parents. They know what religious or other lessons have been taught to their kids -- teachers do not. Parents can answer the ETHICAL, MORAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL/EMOTIONAL questions. Teachers cannot.
Unfortunately, when parents started relegating their roles to the schools, many kids stopped getting "the talk" at home. So, schools started increasing sex ed lessons. My wife left me with 2 teen girls to finish raising. As soon as I found out my younger one was becoming active, I sat her down and discussed everything I thought was important, including the emotional side. She said she unfortunately found out that was the one thing sex ed didn't prepare her for. If one partner is in the relationship for sex, and the other is in it because they really want a BF/GF, it becomes hurtful very quickly.
Girls have much more to lose from lack of knowledge than guys. Worst outcome for a guy is an STD. Worst outcome for a girl cold be pregnancy before finishing high school, or an STD which for girls can lead to becoming sterile. Some STDs are MUCH worse for females than males. Then there's the stigma of having to report STDs to the health dept and CDC, who will then do contact tracing to notify any and all sexual partners that might have been infected. It's how they find outbreaks of STDs in schools now and again.
It's obvious no matter how much information you give school kids, it's never going to stop carelessness. Some kids are more embarrassed asking a 7-11 clerk for condoms than they are getting naked with another student. You can't fix emotions and feelings with "education", especially if a teacher has no personal connection with every student. Again, that's the parent's domain.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 20, 2020, 12:06:09 PM
"on the bill"?
Freudian?
:rofl:
I saw that, but shrugged it off as another instance of how uneducated he is. He already admitted how totally dependent he is on electronic spellcheckers. We're going to have to accept that English is not his first language. Technically, he doesn't have a first language, yet.
Post by: omnigun on October 20, 2020, 12:12:06 PM
Sex ed is best provided by the parents. They know what religious or other lessons have been taught to their kids -- teachers do not. Parents can answer the ETHICAL, MORAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL/EMOTIONAL questions. Teachers cannot.
Unfortunately, when parents started relegating their roles to the schools, many kids stopped getting "the talk" at home. So, schools started increasing sex ed lessons. My wife left me with 2 teen girls to finish raising. As soon as I found out my younger one was becoming active, I sat her down and discussed everything I thought was important, including the emotional side. She said she unfortunately found out that was the one thing sex ed didn't prepare her for. If one partner is in the relationship for sex, and the other is in it because they really want a BF/GF, it becomes hurtful very quickly.
Girls have much more to lose from lack of knowledge than guys. Worst outcome for a guy is an STD. Worst outcome for a girl cold be pregnancy before finishing high school, or an STD which for girls can lead to becoming sterile. Some STDs are MUCH worse for females than males. Then there's the stigma of having to report STDs to the health dept and CDC, who will then do contact tracing to notify any and all sexual partners that might have been infected. It's how they find outbreaks of STDs in schools now and again.
It's obvious no matter how much information you give school kids, it's never going to stop carelessness. Some kids are more embarrassed asking a 7-11 clerk for condoms than they are getting naked with another student. You can't fix emotions and feelings with "education", especially if a teacher has no personal connection with every student. Again, that's the parent's domain.
How do you make sure kids are educated if its up to the parents? What if there are parents that wont give the talk and won't let the school teach? We run into this with home schooling. Kids deserve information and knowledge and an education. They deserve facts not just opinions and to make their own decisions. If they have ultra religious parents that forbid things they should not be forced to live with the lack of knowledge. Teach them the facts and leave more of the morals to the parents is a good balance.
Post by: ren on October 20, 2020, 12:17:35 PM
How do you make sure kids are educated if its up to the parents? What if there are parents that wont give the talk and won't let the school teach? We run into this with home schooling. Kids deserve information and knowledge and an education. They deserve facts not just opinions and to make their own decisions. If they have ultra religious parents that forbid things they should not be forced to live with the lack of knowledge. Teach them the facts and leave more of the morals to the parents is a good balance.
so not only are you "omnigun" but self appointed worldwide savior "omniparent" now?
If I was an honest, tax-paying, mindful parent I'd say "Stay the f*ck away from my kids and guns - you are an absolute colossal fucking idiot trying to be a dictator with a Burger King crown"
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 20, 2020, 12:17:55 PM
"on the bill"?
Freudian?
:rofl:
Pill, No Focus
Post by: drck1000 on October 20, 2020, 12:23:55 PM
I saw that, but shrugged it off as another instance of how uneducated he is. He already admitted how totally dependent he is on electronic spellcheckers. We're going to have to accept that English is not his first language. Technically, he doesn't have a first language, yet.Not the usual suspect that time. The other horny millennial. :rofl:
Pill, No FocusLoosen the tinfoil. Allow some blood flow back to the cabesa. ;D
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 20, 2020, 12:32:54 PM
How do you make sure kids are educated if its up to the parents? What if there are parents that wont give the talk and won't let the school teach? We run into this with home schooling. Kids deserve information and knowledge and an education. They deserve facts not just opinions and to make their own decisions. If they have ultra religious parents that forbid things they should not be forced to live with the lack of knowledge. Teach them the facts and leave more of the morals to the parents is a good balance.
Who said the state is responsible for everything and everyone?
You seem to have learned all about your "freedoms" and "rights", but not about your RESPONSIBILITIES. As a responsible parent, I do my best. It's not my place to substitute myself for others as parents. Nor should it be the school's place.
Maybe they should require all parents attend a night/weekend sex ed course focusing on how the PARENTS are responsible for their kids' education when it comes to things like reproductive health.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 20, 2020, 12:35:03 PM
Not the usual suspect that time. The other horny millennial. :rofl:
Loosen the tinfoil. Allow some blood flow back to the cabesa. ;D
Dang -- I had blinders on from dealing with the "usual suspect."
Apologies for the misdirected language remarks! :shaka:
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 20, 2020, 12:43:44 PM
Dang -- I had blinders on from dealing with the "usual suspect."
Apologies for the misdirected language remarks! :shaka:
Focus :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 20, 2020, 12:46:09 PM
Who said the state is responsible for everything and everyone?
You seem to have learned all about your "freedoms" and "rights", but not about your RESPONSIBILITIES. As a responsible parent, I do my best. It's not my place to substitute myself for others as parents. Nor should it be the school's place.
Maybe they should require all parents attend a night/weekend sex ed course focusing on how the PARENTS are responsible for their kids' education when it comes to things like reproductive health.
That's the junk part, many parents are not teaching their kids life skills. Things like changing a tire, taxes, resume, cooking, not attacking someone because they're wearing a MAGA hat, etc...
TBH, my parents asked if I wanted the talk and it was super awkward. I just said school taught it. I rather learn from a teacher than a parent. And every class always has that 1 guy asking the best sex ed questions.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 20, 2020, 01:00:02 PM
That's the junk part, many parents are not teaching their kids life skills. Things like changing a tire, taxes, resume, cooking, not attacking someone because they're wearing a MAGA hat, etc...
TBH, my parents asked if I wanted the talk and it was super awkward. I just said school taught it. I rather learn from a teacher than a parent. And every class always has that 1 guy asking the best sex ed questions.
I'm not saying don't teach sex ed in schools, but rather increase it to include parents, too. The school can only teach so much based on time, materials, insight into each student's upbringing, and so on. We need to stop making the school RESPONSIBLE for sexual behavior. Make them responsible for the educational part -- anatomy, function, biology, etc. Give the kids a foundation of knowledge, then let the kids and parents handle the behavior aspect. Maybe even schedule a time for parents and teachers to meet with the student and go through a list of topics. Maybe quiz the parent in front of the kid to see what their beliefs are and lessons they might be able to share -- things they would have done differently.
One thing's for sure -- kids have too much time on their hands. I was working and in all kinds of extracurriculars, Boy Scouts, doing household chores, etc. I didn't have the means (car, money) or time until my HS jr year to even consider actually dating anyone. Maybe that is something parents can work on, too. Give the kids something more to do besides texting friends all day, watching YouTube videos and playing the latest video games. Idle hands are the Devil's workshop.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 20, 2020, 01:05:28 PM
One thing's for sure -- kids have too much time on their hands. I was working and in all kinds of extracurriculars, Boy Scouts, doing household chores, etc. I didn't have the means (car, money) or time until my HS jr year to even consider actually dating anyone. Maybe that is something parents can work on, too. Give the kids something more to do besides texting friends all day, watching YouTube videos and playing the latest video games. Idle hands are the Devil's workshop.
have you kid work to buy themselves a boat. Won't have money/time for anything else.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 20, 2020, 01:08:24 PM
have you kid work to buy themselves a boat. Won't have money/time for anything else.
I was asked in college if I'd ever tried pot.
I said, "No. Pot costs money, aside from the fact it's illegal. I was so broke growing up, I couldn't even pay attention!"
Excess "wealth" often leads to excessive behaviors.
Post by: drck1000 on October 20, 2020, 01:47:45 PM
Dang -- I had blinders on from dealing with the "usual suspect."No worries on my end. Other than a ::)
Apologies for the misdirected language remarks! :shaka:
:rofl:
Focus :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:#nofocus
The blood flow to the "little CMO head" taking away from blood flow the the other one. :crazy: :rofl:
Post by: Jl808 on October 22, 2020, 08:14:51 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBLWpKbC3ww
Post by: macsak on October 22, 2020, 08:24:51 PM
Just watched a movie titled "Unplanned". Worth a watch to see a glimpse of the abortion business and how Planned Parenthood operates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBLWpKbC3ww
i doubt that would change a certain someone's "feelings"...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 22, 2020, 09:02:36 PM
i doubt that would change a certain someone's "feelings"...
I don't know. It's a pretty emotional video. That's the kind of thing upon which he bases his opinions. (Let's see if he can read that grammatically correct sentence).
Post by: omnigun on October 22, 2020, 09:05:59 PM
i doubt that would change a certain someone's "feelings"...
Watched the trailer looks like what you all like to fondly call brainwashing with intent. That's all fake with 1% truth that they label its based off of. Reminds me of those religious movies.
Even if I was somehow convinced to view all your viewpoints on abortion would still be pro choice just never make that choice myself. Cause this is America and freedom.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 22, 2020, 09:49:52 PM
I was unaware Republicans ONLY wanted abstinence taught in schools. If I'm not mistaken, they wanted abstinence INCLUDED in sex ed as PART OF birth control -- after all, it is the only form of pregnancy prevention that works every single time it's used.
Get your head out of the sand, it wasn't left wing people who wanted abstinence only education, it was right wing. And no, not all right wing people wanted abstinence only education, some did. Point was that it was something that came much more from conservatives, not liberals.
Quote
The issue is Democrat/Liberal/Progressives don't believe in teaching abstinence, because it involves behavioral self-control and recognizing there are options other than having promiscuous sexual intercourse without worrying about the results. They tell lies (say it isn't so!) that those wanting abstinence taught want that AND NOTHING ELSE taught. There may be some small town exceptions, but you can't say "Republicans" and have any facts to back you up.
Some conservatives, not all, see above
"Abstinence-only education programs, in contrast, received the lowest levels of support (36%) and the highest level of opposition (about 50%) across the 3 program options. "
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/205706
36%, clearly a tiny fraction...
And since you like graphs
(https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/peds/5112/poa60047f2.png?Expires=2147483647&Signature=1LHpJbG7I2l31H8weHiQH09GuDp-nfQOtDbQrp4kjL58jfUYm9pv1T9~E9G4oSfXXfoEymt0mAiGUSDLfcL58Rpjhva5qMODYNI9fonJoCbz4u~QmpwRiWM4kwASZAMRvd55f7LU0uPNvWIz5Jq7BF333bZqXjFwhfY74JsIO2nbfMW4sLnQRaGFr09i2jtQ7Io54YYaeoi4SmoCXYWph5zg5jCE1EB1uhNlrnWbggRX8Mor6OrNyRMRNx9QfFvPRSb8txdCU7gTl5faR5sEQvb5WA4UAejDAKnGzswje7Rla1BX7bGBeMLm1yPSNGi0Mrm-m812N1ddv-KpqqgeIA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA)
Quote
Whether you're talking about pregnancy, STDs or HIV, abstinence PREVENTS a lot of problems. But the Libs want to live unfettered by morals or consequences as long as they have access to every possible SOLUTION for the problems they create.
Abstinence would work great at stopping STDs and unwanted pregnancies, to bad it has never been shown to be an effective model for teenagers to follow. Ideals are great but be realistic, abstinence only education has never been shown to produce the desired results.
Quote
Liberals: We don't want the government in our bedrooms or medical decisions.
EEF: The Republicans are not doing enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. The point is that if abortion is murder and must be reduced as much as possible then you don't fight against sex education which is going to help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. It is like protesting house fires but not wanting people to have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 22, 2020, 09:52:11 PM
There are those that think how you do and there are others with a different viewpoint.
Young minds are so impressionable. Young minds are so over sexualized these days. Pop culture doesn’t help because they glamorize sex and hooking up in almost every show.
As a parent, I don’t want liberal teachers teaching MY kids to have sex for fun and whatever other things they push on kids these days.
I prefer to teach MY kids to be responsible for their actions and to be careful about having sex, not to be sex crazy and want to have sex with anything that moves. Focus on school, focus on their goals, delayed gratification, personal responsibility, develop good character.
I would prefer them to have sex in the context of marriage but that would be their choice when they’re prove that they are mature enough to take personal responsibility for their actions.
I agree with you here. I want my children to be educated but I don't want an education that glorifies sexual activity outside of marriage either. Part of the problem is society but part of the problem is biology too.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 22, 2020, 09:53:39 PM
Watched the trailer looks like what you all like to fondly call brainwashing with intent. That's all fake with 1% truth that they label its based off of. Reminds me of those religious movies.
Even if I was somehow convinced to view all your viewpoints on abortion would still be pro choice just never make that choice myself. Cause this is America and freedom.
This is the 79th time you've posted your opinion on the topic.
If you hit 100, do you get a set of salad spoons?
Post by: aieahound on October 22, 2020, 09:58:35 PM
This is the 79th time you've posted your opinion on the topic.
If you hit 100, do you get a set of salad spoons?
If he’s at 79, then you must have just hit 79 too because you reply to every dang thing he posts.
(On every topic)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 22, 2020, 09:59:46 PM
If he’s at 79, then you must have just hit 79 too because you reply to every dang thing he posts.
(On every topic)
Nobody cares what you think.
:wave:
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 06:19:26 AM
This is the 79th time you've posted your opinion on the topic.
If you hit 100, do you get a set of salad spoons?
Posting opinions on a topic I started? Why would someone do that? :crazy:
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 08:15:12 AM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-geneva-consensus-declaration-trump-pompeo-azar-us-saudi-arabia-uganda-b1250419.html
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 08:19:22 AM
https://apnews.com/article/international-news-poland-abortion-europe-birth-defects-9258358858a72911663cd1d276a8fbd2
Future dystopia?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 08:20:42 AM
Posting opinions on a topic I started? Why would someone do that? :crazy:
Opinions?
No. Just the same one over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
:sleeping:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 08:21:29 AM
The Trump administration has joined 32 illiberal or authoritarian countries in declaring that women have no intrinsic right to abortion.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-geneva-consensus-declaration-trump-pompeo-azar-us-saudi-arabia-uganda-b1250419.html
Do you know what "intrinsic" means?
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 08:26:18 AM
Do you know what "intrinsic" means?
Definition of intrinsic
1a: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing
the intrinsic worth of a gem
the intrinsic brightness of a star
b: being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains
2a: originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part
an intrinsic metabolic disease
b: originating and included wholly within an organ or part
intrinsic muscles
intrinsic
[ in-trin-sik, -zik ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR intrinsic ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective
belonging to a thing by its very nature:
the intrinsic value of a gold ring.
Anatomy. (of certain muscles, nerves, etc.) belonging to or lying within a given part.
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 08:27:20 AM
Opinions?
No. Just the same one over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
and over
:sleeping:
I guess I just need to spice things up :shake: Posted 2 new links in previous posts
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 08:37:22 AM
Poland's top court rules out abortions due to fetal defects
https://apnews.com/article/international-news-poland-abortion-europe-birth-defects-9258358858a72911663cd1d276a8fbd2
Future dystopia?
The Dystopia would be genetic selection of the children who deserve to be born while killing those you deem undeserving.
The Nazis had a name for this practice, a practice they called: eugenics.
Quote
Eugenics was popular in America during much of the first half of the twentieth century,
yet it earned its negative association mainly from Adolf Hitler’s obsessive attempts to
create a superior Aryan race.
Who decides which genetic qualities and traits are desirable, and which ones are not? If genetic "corrections" are done in a lab as the egg is fertilized, that's one thing. Terminating a pregnancy because one parent's genes are dominant but you wanted the other parent's traits is playing god.
You really ought to watch the movie, Gattaca. Its the futuristic story of how the world was divided into two classes: Valids and Invalids.
Valids were the product of genetic modifications. Parents picked hair and eye color, sex, and a whole list of other aesthetic traits. Then the doctors ensured problems like heart disease or defects were eliminated from the genetic "history".
Invalids were the children of parents who either didn't have the option to do genetic mods (wasn't available at the time, could not afford it, or just didn't believe in the practice).
The Valids were given all the top opportunities and jobs. They were the best athletes, best minds, etc. The Invalids became the labor force and treated as second class citizens ... literally.
There's a good story and a few lessons about how much, and how little, control we actually have over our lives, and whether we are smart enough to decide which lives have value and which ones don't.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 08:37:53 AM
Definition of intrinsic
1a: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing
the intrinsic worth of a gem
the intrinsic brightness of a star
b: being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains
2a: originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part
an intrinsic metabolic disease
b: originating and included wholly within an organ or part
intrinsic muscles
intrinsic
[ in-trin-sik, -zik ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR intrinsic ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective
belonging to a thing by its very nature:
the intrinsic value of a gold ring.
Anatomy. (of certain muscles, nerves, etc.) belonging to or lying within a given part.
I didn't ask if you know how to use Google.
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 09:19:24 AM
The Dystopia would be genetic selection of the children who deserve to be born while killing those you deem undeserving.
The Nazis had a name for this practice, a practice they : eugenics.
Who decides which genetic qualities and traits are desirable, and which ones are not? If genetic "corrections" are done in a lab as the egg is fertilized, that's one thing. Terminating a pregnancy because one parent's genes are dominant but you wanted the other parent's traits is playing god.
You really ought to watch the movie, Gattaca. Its the futuristic story of how the world was divided into two classes: Valids and Invalids.
Valids were the product of genetic modifications. Parents picked hair and eye color, sex, and a whole list of other aesthetic traits. Then the doctors ensured problems like heart disease or defects were eliminated from the genetic "history".
Invalids were the children of parents who either didn't have the option to do genetic mods (wasn't available at the time, could not afford it, or just didn't believe in the practice).
The Valids were given all the top opportunities and jobs. They were the best athletes, best minds, etc. The Invalids became the labor force and treated as second class citizens ... literally.
There's a good story and a few lessons about how much, and how little, control we actually have over our lives, and whether we are smart enough to decide which lives have value and which ones don't.
We are talking about genetic defects here. Not what color hair they have or are they white enough like the Nazis. I'm talking about are they missing organs. Things we shouldn't force the poor child to be born to live with. Things we shouldn't force the parents to live with. Things we shouldn't force society to live with.
I did watch that film it was interesting. I do agree that its a difficult thing to trend towards. It would have to be available to all regardless of wealth to erase discrimination. But I think its a great thing. Imagine a world with only smart people, people with no diseases. Everyone lives a happy full life. Perhaps eliminate cancer and hiv and other things that genetics can fix.
Post by: macsak on October 23, 2020, 09:25:06 AM
We are talking about genetic defects here. Not what color hair they have or are they white enough like the Nazis. I'm talking about are they missing organs. Things we shouldn't force the poor child to be born to live with. Things we shouldn't force the parents to live with. Things we shouldn't force society to live with.
I did watch that film it was interesting. I do agree that its a difficult thing to trend towards. It would have to be available to all regardless of wealth to erase discrimination. But I think its a great thing. Imagine a world with only smart people, people with no diseases. Everyone lives a happy full life. Perhaps eliminate cancer and hiv and other things that genetics can fix.
Post by: drck1000 on October 23, 2020, 09:26:58 AM
gentics can fix HIV?Who dat? ???
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 09:31:46 AM
We are talking about genetic defects here. Not what color hair they have or are they white enough like the Nazis. I'm talking about are they missing organs. Things we shouldn't force the poor child to be born to live with. Things we shouldn't force the parents to live with. Things we shouldn't force society to live with.
I did watch that film it was interesting. I do agree that its a difficult thing to trend towards. It would have to be available to all regardless of wealth to erase discrimination. But I think its a great thing. Imagine a world with only smart people, people with no diseases. Everyone lives a happy full life. Perhaps eliminate cancer and hiv and other things that genetics can fix.
No, you are talking about placing a value on a life. Those with defects are considered worthless, and those which you determine to be "normal" MAY be allowed to pass through the birth canal. You're not talking about anything else.
I can imagine quite a lot. But, every time man tries to play god, the benefits are offset by the harm it does. What man thinks is "perfection" requires an assumption that he knows at least as much as nature or God. What if the lab made a mistake? You might not know until the child has a physical for school, and you discover a defect in the heart, kidneys or whatever that shortens his/her life significantly. You can't test for everything.
Didn't Jurassic Park start this way?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 09:37:19 AM
gentics can fix HIV?
Sure. You just have to find and remove the Gay gene ....
If we can stop the Human Immunodeficiency Virus by changing our genes, maybe we can fix COVID and all the other SARS variants, too! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I don't think he knows how any of this works. :wacko:
Post by: macsak on October 23, 2020, 09:43:21 AM
Who dat? ???
no focus
Post by: ren on October 23, 2020, 09:44:18 AM
gentics can fix HIV?
Let the real doctor speak...
Post by: macsak on October 23, 2020, 10:05:38 AM
Let the real doctor speak...
heads
Post by: oldfart on October 23, 2020, 10:28:49 AM
I formulate my opinions from personal experience and.common sense.=================
About 20 years ago a woman became pregnant with a girl.
The girl had a defective chromosome structure.
The doctors said the girl might be retarded and have medical problems.
The doctors offered to abort the baby.
The parents said no.
Today, that girl is an aspiring french pastry chef in college who has already created treats enjoyed by some notable local tv celebs and a few lucky members of our local gun community.
I kind of got tired of seeing this thread going on and on so I'm going to elaborate on this TRUE story I posted.
The girl I wrote about is my daughter.
When the doctor offered us the abortion option she was the size of a peanut in mommy's opu.
In fact, we nick-named her "Peanut" because that's what she looked like in the sonogram.
Her chromosome defect doesn't seem to have caused any problems at all.
She is a tall, smart, hard working and good looking girl in college today.
How tragic would it have been if we decided to terminate her?
(tart she created completely from scratch including the shells and chocolate flourish)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mk1dSsWB/20200919-192019-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/q60XkW75)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 10:36:08 AM
=================
I kind of got tired of seeing this thread going on and on so I'm going to elaborate on this TRUE story I posted.
The girl I wrote about is my daughter.
When the doctor offered us the abortion option she was the size of a peanut in mommy's opu.
In fact, we nick-named her "Peanut" because that's what she looked like in the sonogram.
Her chromosome defect doesn't seem to have caused any problems at all.
She is a tall, smart, hard working and good looking girl in college today.
How tragic would it have been if we decided to terminate her?
(tart she created completely from scratch including the shells and chocolate flourish)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mk1dSsWB/20200919-192019-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/q60XkW75)
Your story is not rare.
People like OmniGun think they have a right to decide which children can live or die as long as there's some list of "issues" that give them the abortion option regardless of the length of pregnancy. If a test determines 3 weeks before the due date that the child has developmental abnormalities, they want to abort -- no restrictions. Basically, they are selfish and do not want to be burdened with a special needs child. They can pretend it's in the child's interest -- saving them from a lifetime of difficulties. Somehow they think the child would prefer death over a difficult life. How is that not playing god?
It's been said that having abortions can lead to miscarriages in healthy women. So, if OG's GF decides to abort 1,2 or more times, then decides they are ready to have kids, their choices may prevent her from getting pregnant or carrying to full term.
Consequences.
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 10:46:44 AM
=================
I kind of got tired of seeing this thread going on and on so I'm going to elaborate on this TRUE story I posted.
The girl I wrote about is my daughter.
When the doctor offered us the abortion option she was the size of a peanut in mommy's opu.
In fact, we nick-named her "Peanut" because that's what she looked like in the sonogram.
Her chromosome defect doesn't seem to have caused any problems at all.
She is a tall, smart, hard working and good looking girl in college today.
How tragic would it have been if we decided to terminate her?
(tart she created completely from scratch including the shells and chocolate flourish)
I support you decision, I don't want to tell you what to do. I am advocating choice not mandatory abortions. If someone wants to make that decision power to them but if someone doesn't they should have that right too.
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 10:51:55 AM
Your story is not rare.
People like OmniGun think they have a right to decide which children can live or die as long as there's some list of "issues" that give them the abortion option regardless of the length of pregnancy. If a test determines 3 weeks before the due date that the child has developmental abnormalities, they want to abort -- no restrictions. Basically, they are selfish and do not want to be burdened with a special needs child. They can pretend it's in the child's interest -- saving them from a lifetime of difficulties. Somehow they think the child would prefer death over a difficult life. How is that not playing god?
It's been said that having abortions can lead to miscarriages in healthy women. So, if OG's GF decides to abort 1,2 or more times, then decides they are ready to have kids, their choices may prevent her from getting pregnant or carrying to full term.
Consequences.
No people like me says the person who is in that situation has the right to decide. No one else can or should make that decision for them. Its theirs and their alone. If you do a test and it shows issues it should be your right to decide what to do. No reasonable restrictions. (aka you cant abort right before its born...). Why must you insert your opinions or assumptions or reasoning on others? Its their choice. They have to live with what choice they make. If it means they can't have kids in the future or for some religious beliefs or anything, that's on them.
On a side note: People play "god" all the time, why is this bad?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 11:10:58 AM
I support you decision, I don't want to tell you what to do. I am advocating choice not mandatory abortions. If someone wants to make that decision power to them but if someone doesn't they should have that right too.
You're advocating for unrestricted abortion, not "choice". Stop sugar-coating it.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 11:13:05 AM
No people like me says the person who is in that situation has the right to decide. No one else can or should make that decision for them. Its theirs and their alone. If you do a test and it shows issues it should be your right to decide what to do. No reasonable restrictions. (aka you cant abort right before its born...). Why must you insert your opinions or assumptions or reasoning on others? Its their choice. They have to live with what choice they make. If it means they can't have kids in the future or for some religious beliefs or anything, that's on them.
On a side note: People play "god" all the time, why is this bad?
You have unrestricted rights to kill a child.
The child has no rights.
We got it.
AGAIN.
Yes, people play god all the time.
When we catch them, we charge them with murder.
Post by: oldfart on October 23, 2020, 11:14:11 AM
I support you decision, I don't want to tell you what to do. I am advocating choice not mandatory abortions. If someone wants to make that decision power to them but if someone doesn't they should have that right too.======
what would you have done if the peanut were yours?
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 11:22:57 AM
======
what would you have done if the peanut were yours?
I am not sure, in all honesty I probably wouldn't take the chance you did. I hope I am never in the situation you found yourself in and have I have great respect for you and your decision. You took a chance knowing the stakes and were blessed. You are a better person than me probably lol.
I just feel that no one has the right to tell someone else what to do.
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 11:23:56 AM
You're advocating for unrestricted abortion, not "choice". Stop sugar-coating it.
What? It is a choice? You can choose not to have an abortion and place all the restrictions you want on yourself.
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 11:25:40 AM
You have unrestricted rights to kill a child.
The child has no rights.
We got it.
AGAIN.
Yes, people play god all the time.
When we catch them, we charge them with murder.
The judge or jury deciding the outcome of the defendant, is this "god"
The executioner of the convicted criminal, are they "god"
A soldier at war killing someone, are they "god"
The doctor saving someones life over another, are they "god"
They are just choices people make that effect others. People do it all the time. They are all not charged with murder.
Post by: macsak on October 23, 2020, 12:13:46 PM
I am not sure, in all honesty I probably wouldn't take the chance you did. I hope I am never in the situation you found yourself in and have I have great respect for you and your decision. You took a chance knowing the stakes and were blessed. You are a better person than me probably lol.
I just feel that no one has the right to tell someone else what to do.
why the "probably" and "lol"?
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 12:50:21 PM
why the "probably" and "lol"?
Cause I don't know the guy personally. Can't evaluate the rest of his life. And I injected humor into the convo.
Post by: drck1000 on October 23, 2020, 12:51:14 PM
Cause I don't know the guy personally. Can't evaluate the rest of his life. And I injected humor into the convo.Get to know him. He can take you to the range and teach you to actually shoot your collection. :thumbsup:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 01:51:37 PM
Get to know him. He can take you to the range and teach you to actually shoot your collection. :thumbsup:
Never take anyone to the range who doesn't value human life. :thumbsup:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 23, 2020, 09:26:30 PM
=================
I kind of got tired of seeing this thread going on and on so I'm going to elaborate on this TRUE story I posted.
The girl I wrote about is my daughter.
When the doctor offered us the abortion option she was the size of a peanut in mommy's opu.
In fact, we nick-named her "Peanut" because that's what she looked like in the sonogram.
Her chromosome defect doesn't seem to have caused any problems at all.
She is a tall, smart, hard working and good looking girl in college today.
How tragic would it have been if we decided to terminate her?
(tart she created completely from scratch including the shells and chocolate flourish)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mk1dSsWB/20200919-192019-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/q60XkW75)
I don't know, I think we are going to have to taste test those pastries, just to be sure.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 23, 2020, 09:32:55 PM
We are talking about genetic defects here. Not what color hair they have or are they white enough like the Nazis. I'm talking about are they missing organs. Things we shouldn't force the poor child to be born to live with. Things we shouldn't force the parents to live with. Things we shouldn't force society to live with.
So say you were to be born with only 1 lung which would limit your athletic abilities and give you breathing problems later. Would you not want the decision to be born or not? Would you rather someone else determine what your life would be worth based on how much difficulty you may have in life? I think I would rather be the one who decides whether my life is to difficult to keep on living.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 23, 2020, 09:33:58 PM
Sure. You just have to find and remove the Gay gene ....
If we can stop the Human Immunodeficiency Virus by changing our genes, maybe we can fix COVID and all the other SARS variants, too! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I don't think he knows how any of this works. :wacko:
The man credited with discovering HIV stated that a healthy immune system can defeat HIV on its own.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 09:41:01 PM
The man credited with discovering HIV stated that a healthy immune system can defeat HIV on its own.
So?
My cat purrs.
:wacko:
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 09:43:04 PM
Sure. You just have to find and remove the Gay gene ....
If we can stop the Human Immunodeficiency Virus by changing our genes, maybe we can fix COVID and all the other SARS variants, too! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I don't think he knows how any of this works. :wacko:
I think a certain flap is really the ignorant one. Inb4 he finds some way to twist this to that he isnt wrong. Cause flap is never wrong....
A genetic mutation known as CCR5-delta 32 is responsible for the two types of HIV resistance that exist. CCR5-delta 32 hampers HIV's ability to infiltrate immune cells.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/viruses101/hiv_resistant_mutation/#:~:text=A%20genetic%20mutation%20known%20as,ability%20to%20infiltrate%20immune%20cells.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 09:46:13 PM
I think a certain flap is really the ignorant one. Inb4 he finds some way to twist this to that he isnt wrong. Cause flap is never wrong....
A genetic mutation known as CCR5-delta 32 is responsible for the two types of HIV resistance that exist. CCR5-delta 32 hampers HIV's ability to infiltrate immune cells.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/viruses101/hiv_resistant_mutation/#:~:text=A%20genetic%20mutation%20known%20as,ability%20to%20infiltrate%20immune%20cells.
So, why is that not a routine procedure for HIV prevention for the general population?
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 09:46:34 PM
So say you were to be born with only 1 lung which would limit your athletic abilities and give you breathing problems later. Would you not want the decision to be born or not? Would you rather someone else determine what your life would be worth based on how much difficulty you may have in life? I think I would rather be the one who decides whether my life is to difficult to keep on living.
Hmm I would probably choose not to be born. I know its one of those gotcha questions but, I developed my personality and thoughts over time. If I was aborted I would never know, have no regrets and have no suffering. Its one of those questions if you never existed would you regret not existing?
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 09:47:16 PM
So, why is that not a routine procedure for HIV prevention for the general population?
Because we can't gene edit like that yet? People like you scream that we are playing god and prevent science from fixing things like that.
Though I do have hopes that crispr might provide hope to gene edit people who are already living in addition to editing embryos.
Post by: macsak on October 23, 2020, 09:51:05 PM
Hmm I would probably choose not to be born. I know its one of those gotcha questions but, I developed my personality and thoughts over time. If I was aborted I would never know, have no regrets and have no suffering. Its one of those questions if you never existed would you regret not existing?
so you are saying a fetus is sentient?
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 09:52:07 PM
so you are saying a fetus is sentient?
Not in the slightest. If you read past that one sentence you would understand. The entire point of the reply is that I had no sentience, so I never existed so I couldn't regret not existing...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 09:52:41 PM
Because we can't gene edit like that yet? People like you scream that we are playing god and prevent science from fixing things like that.
Though I do have hopes that crispr might provide hope to gene edit people who are already living in addition to editing embryos.
Try again. Maybe read your own damn source??
Quote
The mutation is not completely fool proof. Cases of homozygous carriers that have become
infected with HIV have been reported. These few exceptions have dissuaded health officials
from fully supporting genetic tests over ethical concerns. It would not be wise for those with
the mutation to assume that they can lead a dangerous lifestyle and remain healthy.
Understanding how and why certain people are resistant to HIV/AIDS with the help of CCR5-32
Delta will hopefully lead to new and highly successful treatments in our lifetime.
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 09:54:16 PM
Try again. Maybe read your own damn source??
I posted that because of facts? Not ethics. Ethics are personal feelings. I don't think its unethical. Technically there is no reason if you are immune to do whatever you want with that info.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 09:55:03 PM
Not in the slightest. If you read past that one sentence you would understand. The entire point of the reply is that I had no sentience, so I never existed so I couldn't regret not existing...
YOU said you would CHOOSE not to be born.
Choice requires intelligence and consciousness.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 23, 2020, 09:56:08 PM
I posted that because of facts? Not ethics. Ethics are personal feelings. I don't think its unethical. Technically there is no reason if you are immune to do whatever you want with that info.
I asked a question. The answer was in the article. You obviously didn't read it.
Stop. Just stop.
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 10:03:47 PM
I asked a question. The answer was in the article. You obviously didn't read it.
Stop. Just stop.
The authors personal opinion was that it was not ethical not sure why you automatically believe it applies to all opinions...
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 10:06:05 PM
YOU said you would CHOOSE not to be born.
Choice requires intelligence and consciousness.
That's not even the question that was asked...
Would you not want the decision to be born or not? Would you rather someone else determine what your life would be worth based on how much difficulty you may have in life?
How's this because the whole point is the mother choosing I would want my mother to choose for me to not exist. Everything else applies that I would have no regret because I wouldn't even be aware that I wasn't going to exist.
If I am the one choosing its a paradox....the same as going into the past and killing your grandpa.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 23, 2020, 10:06:32 PM
Hmm I would probably choose not to be born. I know its one of those gotcha questions but, I developed my personality and thoughts over time. If I was aborted I would never know, have no regrets and have no suffering. Its one of those questions if you never existed would you regret not existing?
Personally, even if my outlook on life were that bad, I would rather make the choice myself.
You are absolutely correct, if you were aborted you would never know, have no regrets, no suffering. But say your parents chose to end your life when you were 6 months old, the same would hold true because you had no concept of existing or value or suffering.
Post by: omnigun on October 23, 2020, 10:10:10 PM
Personally, even if my outlook on life were that bad, I would rather make the choice myself.
You are absolutely correct, if you were aborted you would never know, have no regrets, no suffering. But say your parents chose to end your life when you were 6 months old, the same would hold true because you had no concept of existing or value or suffering.
Since I don't know exactly when I would have sentience 6 months is plausible that I wouldn't know. Even at that point if I had sentience I would have no life knowledge or enough personality to regret or like you said have no concept of existing or value or suffering.
Post by: aieahound on October 23, 2020, 10:23:57 PM
YOU said you would CHOOSE not to be born.
Choice requires intelligence and consciousness.
Come on Flapp. What are you MSM? Taking things out of context and yelling about them with the edited text? (Edited meaning one line of a Multi post discussion)
At least Mac was being facetious. (I think)
Not in the slightest. If you read past that one sentence you would understand. The entire point of the reply is that I had no sentience, so I never existed so I couldn't regret not existing...
I’m starting to think about this. (Yes Snowflapp, I do think sometimes. Seems like more than you.)
So in the modern era, we’re only alive because of the choice of our Mother ? Literally.
I Gotta ponder that.
I think all life strives to be alive ( with a few exceptions based on stage and frame of mind)
Should it be life or sentience or a heart beat indicating central nervous development?
One definite, the other two variable for each life and arguably arbitrary.
Based on above
Why would rape or incest matter ?
What if the parents can’t economically cover the cost of severe defect ?
Or perhaps worse, can’t deal with it mentally/emotionally in the raising of a disabled child.
What happens to the disabled child?
But shouldn’t/should a Woman have a choice ?
I Gotta ponder those too.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 24, 2020, 08:53:37 PM
Since I don't know exactly when I would have sentience 6 months is plausible that I wouldn't know. Even at that point if I had sentience I would have no life knowledge or enough personality to regret or like you said have no concept of existing or value or suffering.
What I am trying to show is the slippery slope to the logic of allowing others to determine our life value and end it based on such determinations. If a disability is a justification to end it before birth, why not after birth? If I take the logic to the extreme I could justify going around killing drug users because the society would be better off without them.
And I wasn't asking about remorse or regret, obviously we can never experience that if we never reach the capacity to understand such things. I was posing a moral question of whether you would want the choice or you would be fine with having it made for you
Post by: omnigun on October 24, 2020, 09:30:20 PM
What I am trying to show is the slippery slope to the logic of allowing others to determine our life value and end it based on such determinations. If a disability is a justification to end it before birth, why not after birth? If I take the logic to the extreme I could justify going around killing drug users because the society would be better off without them.
And I wasn't asking about remorse or regret, obviously we can never experience that if we never reach the capacity to understand such things. I was posing a moral question of whether you would want the choice or you would be fine with having it made for you
Hmmm I think of it as more of a cliff, you don't have to cross the line. Because before birth is talking about something that doesn't exist, as long as we keep the line based on sentient existence we don't have a slippery slope.
I feel that because I don't exist I don't have a choice. When I become sentient and gain existence that's when choices can be made by myself. But until then, not.
Post by: aieahound on October 24, 2020, 10:21:47 PM
I’m alive and growing
or when I am sentient
or when i can learn to roll over
or at the age of memory....?
If I feel pain but can have no memory of it because I was too young did I feel pain?
Also, there is no test for sentience which varies in every fetus
Post by: omnigun on October 24, 2020, 10:28:29 PM
Do I exist when:
I’m alive and growing
or when I am sentient
or when i can learn to roll over
or at the age of memory....?
If I feel pain but can have no memory of it because I was too young did I feel pain?
Also, there is no test for sentience which varies in every fetus.
I think "human life" begins at sentience. The very start, where it become more unethical to abort. You may not remember it but you were able to feel and understand it to a point. If a tree in a forest falls but no one hears it, did it fall? <-- yes it did.
As for a test, yes there no not exact test or time, but a general understanding when it occurs.
Post by: aieahound on October 24, 2020, 10:32:44 PM
before birth is talking about something that doesn't exist.
So a growing fetus doesn’t exist ?
Sentient or not.
Having been through three, that bean turns into a human pretty darn quick. Sonograms are nuts. .
Does a Woman or Parents have a Right to choose ?
That’s a question I pose to the entire forum.
Post by: omnigun on October 24, 2020, 10:48:16 PM
So a growing fetus doesn’t exist ?
Sentient or not.
Having been through three, that bean turns into a human pretty darn quick. Sonograms are nuts. .
Does a Woman or Parents have a Right to choose ?
That’s a question I pose to the entire forum.
Doesn't exist as in being a human, sorry if I'm not explaining it well enough. Its a bunch of cells until, its not. But for me personally even when its human the mother or parents have a certain degree of choice still.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on October 28, 2020, 08:52:34 PM
Hmmm I think of it as more of a cliff, you don't have to cross the line. Because before birth is talking about something that doesn't exist, as long as we keep the line based on sentient existence we don't have a slippery slope.
I feel that because I don't exist I don't have a choice. When I become sentient and gain existence that's when choices can be made by myself. But until then, not.
It is drawing a line and drawing one that makes sense at some emotional level. The baby is visible, you can see it move and cry, a connection is formed, it becomes more tangible. But in the end it is still a rather arbitrary line to draw. There is little to no difference between a baby just born and a baby a day before being born, yet one should be ok to kill and the other shouldn't?
Post by: omnigun on December 29, 2020, 08:25:50 AM
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/satanic-temple-abortion-ritual-advertised-on-miami-billboard-11779916
With the freedom of religion being so paramount, especially by the conservatives. This is an excellent way to practice it. Even those in the forum can't argue with this rational.
If you can preach freedom of religion to not get vaccines etc. Than others can do the same for abortion. I wonder how this relates to freedom of choice the anti-maskers preach.
*edited* fixed link
Post by: Inspector on December 29, 2020, 08:43:40 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on December 29, 2020, 09:20:10 AM
DON’T FEED THE TROLL
.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 29, 2020, 12:26:41 PM
I just read the most interesting article.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/dirty-dozen-2020-miamis-worst-people-of-the-year-11787370
With the freedom of religion being so paramount, especially by the conservatives. This is an excellent way to practice it. Even those in the forum can't argue with this rational.
If you can preach freedom of religion to not get vaccines etc. Than others can do the same for abortion. I wonder how this relates to freedom of choice the anti-maskers preach.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/miami-new-times-2/
The link posted includes the word "abortion" zero times.
:sleeping:
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
Post by: omnigun on December 29, 2020, 12:53:57 PM
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/miami-new-times-2/
The link posted includes the word "abortion" zero times.
:sleeping:
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
My apologies not sure how the link didnt copy correct.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/satanic-temple-abortion-ritual-advertised-on-miami-billboard-11779916
It's an article how Satanists have equal religious rights and can use said rights to enable abortion.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 29, 2020, 12:55:57 PM
My apologies not sure how the link didnt copy correct.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/satanic-temple-abortion-ritual-advertised-on-miami-billboard-11779916
Maybe you should hire an IT expert to train you on copy, paste and other software features of your devices and apps?
Post by: omnigun on December 29, 2020, 01:00:49 PM
Maybe you should hire an IT expert to train you on copy, paste and other software features of your devices and apps?
Another distraction from the substance of the topic. Guess you can only comment on the ways I got the information not what is contained.
:stopjack:
Religious rights of Satanists is a valid reason to allow abortion. Because the arguments of religious freedom.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 29, 2020, 01:06:25 PM
Another distraction from the substance of the topic. Guess you can only comment on the ways I got the information not what is contained.
:stopjack:
Religious rights of Satanists is a valid reason to allow abortion. Because the arguments of religious freedom.
Religions are not granted a "Get Out of Jail Free" card to break the law. If abortions are illegal after a certain point in the pregnancy, religious arguments will not make it legal.
People have tried that rationalization for all sorts of things, like polygamy, recreational drug use, child rape, etc.
The fact you find this "interesting" shows how little you know. This is NOT a new concept.
Post by: Inspector on December 29, 2020, 01:10:30 PM
DON’T FEED THE TROLL
Post by: ren on December 29, 2020, 01:11:54 PM
Post by: omnigun on December 29, 2020, 01:52:02 PM
Religions are not granted a "Get Out of Jail Free" card to break the law. If abortions are illegal after a certain point in the pregnancy, religious arguments will not make it legal.
People have tried that rationalization for all sorts of things, like polygamy, recreational drug use, child rape, etc.
The fact you find this "interesting" shows how little you know. This is NOT a new concept.
Much of the argument against abortion is because Christianity and other similar religions are against it. In many states forcing people to do un-needed "education". Abortion is not illegal per supreme court. This is a great way for people to practice abortion and religious freedom. That way one religion doesn't force its ideals on others, like how it is currently happening.
Post by: Inspector on December 29, 2020, 01:53:39 PM
Post by: ren on December 29, 2020, 01:59:21 PM
Post by: omnigun on December 29, 2020, 02:08:51 PM
FLAPP, DON’T FEED THE TROLL
Interesting new strategy learned from the liberals. Call everything they don't believe in a troll and ignore it. Cancel culture at its finest. And people wonder why people are getting more polarized. :crazy:
I will never stop posting my thoughts and viewpoints, I will not be part of the echo chamber. Its your choice to read or respond. Hopefully there are people on this forum either posters or lurkers who can gain other view points, a more center view point. Not sure why many of you have resorted to spamming every message I write. I am not trolling I just have a different viewpoint on life. Different ideas. If you don't believe in the same, that's fine. But it doesn't make me a troll. I agree with some viewpoints and things here. Does that make everyone a troll too?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 29, 2020, 02:15:42 PM
FLAPP, DON’T FEED THE TROLL
But, can't I at least troll the Troll?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Post by: aletheuo137 on December 29, 2020, 02:43:14 PM
Doesn't exist as in being a human, sorry if I'm not explaining it well enough. Its a bunch of cells until, its not. But for me personally even when its human the mother or parents have a certain degree of choice still.So you have a PhD in genetics? Are you an expert? I spent three years in a genetics research lab at John A. Burns school of medicine, and I can say you don't know what your talking about.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 29, 2020, 02:52:07 PM
So you have a PhD in genetics? Are you an expert? I spent three years in a genetics research lab at John A. Burns school of medicine, and I can say you don't know what your talking about.
He doesn't need to "know" anything to have an opinion. He has Google.
First link in the search results to confirm his bias wins. :geekdanc:
Post by: aletheuo137 on December 29, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
He doesn't need to "know" anything to have an opinion. He has Google.Spaming him!
First link in the search results to confirm his bias wins. :geekdanc:
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on December 29, 2020, 02:56:18 PM
So you have a PhD in genetics? Are you an expert? I spent three years in a genetics research lab at John A. Burns school of medicine, and I can say you don't know what your talking about.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Can you prove the fetus is sentient through your expertise?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 29, 2020, 02:59:44 PM
Can you prove the fetus is sentient through your expertise?
Can you prove it's NOT?
:geekdanc:
Post by: omnigun on December 29, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Can you prove it's NOT?
:geekdanc:
Burden of evidence is on you.
Disproving something like that is hard, its like trying to disprove God. But because you want to ban it because its "wrong". You have to prove its "wrong".
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 29, 2020, 05:21:31 PM
Burden of evidence is on you.
Disproving something like that is hard, its like trying to disprove God. But because you want to ban it because its "wrong". You have to prove its "wrong".
A simple "no" is sufficient.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 29, 2020, 05:31:03 PM
Burden of evidence is on you.
Disproving something like that is hard, its like trying to disprove God. But because you want to ban it because its "wrong". You have to prove its "wrong".
Boy, you can't come up with a lucid, cognitive thought in a simple 2 sentence post, can you?
The burden of proof is on the person who's destroying life. The other side of the argument isn't causing death.
Post by: aletheuo137 on December 29, 2020, 05:35:21 PM
He doesn't need to "know" anything to have an opinion. He has Google.Still doesn't know what he's talking about. It's more like follow your favorite Google site.
First link in the search results to confirm his bias wins. :geekdanc:
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on December 29, 2020, 05:39:43 PM
Boy, you can't come up with a lucid, cognitive thought in a simple 2 sentence post, can you?
The burden of proof is on the person who's destroying life. The other side of the argument isn't causing death.
Like I said before you can't prove its alive, so its not a life. Anyway we have been over this before. I was just pointing out that religious exemptions can be used to skirt the Christians and other religions crusade against abortion while they preach religious choice.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 29, 2020, 05:50:48 PM
Like I said before you can't prove its alive, so its not a life. Anyway we have been over this before. I was just pointing out that religious exemptions can be used to skirt the Christians and other religions crusade against abortion while they preach religious choice.
You're right. We went over this already. And the conclusion was that SCIENCE, not RELIGION, states that a fetus is life that is developing into a human being. Science has changed since Roe v Wade. We now know the fetus is more developed mentally than we could determine before.
You keep falling back on your lame religious arguments. Yet nobody else on here is using religion to support pro-life. It's science that you can't refute, so you dodge the facts.
Science!
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38366.msg341916#msg341916
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 29, 2020, 06:10:14 PM
Burden of evidence is on you.
Disproving something like that is hard, its like trying to disprove God. But because you want to ban it because its "wrong". You have to prove its "wrong".
As we ALREADY SAID, the burden is on you, because you set the criteria as "must be sentient." Unless you can demonstrate you are NOT KILLING A SENTIENT BEING, then to abort is basically a blind shot in the dark with no science supporting it. For all you know, you are killing a sentient being, and therefore are committing murder. I'd want to be able to support my theory that the fetus isn't sentient before committing murder, as should you.
Burden is on the person committing the bigger crime: abortion right versus right to life.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on December 29, 2020, 06:34:45 PM
Burden of evidence is on you.
Disproving something like that is hard, its like trying to disprove God. But because you want to ban it because its "wrong". You have to prove its "wrong".
Prove murder is wrong. You can't yet I suspect you are perfectly fine with laws outlawing it.
Post by: omnigun on December 29, 2020, 06:42:05 PM
Prove murder is wrong. You can't yet I suspect you are perfectly fine with laws outlawing it.
Murder is unlawful because of societal reasons. It's not technically wrong. We sanction it in the death penalty. We kill others in self defense. We kill our enemies in war. But society judges that to be fine. Religious people used to kill others in the name of religion.
America is a society that embraces freedom and it should include the freedom over your own body and the right to abort. In the end society and the majority decide what is right and wrong.
I would argue the same is true for abortion. Except we can't prove its sentient. So it had even less societal or "moral" impacts. The minority want to ban it. Society wants to do it. Thus it should be allowed. Especially with America's society and its constitution.
If we can't agree on the science, cause clearly that is going to go no where. We agree that religion is not involved. Then maybe we can agree on this.
Post by: aletheuo137 on December 30, 2020, 06:03:09 AM
As we ALREADY SAID, the burden is on you, because you set the criteria as "must be sentient." Unless you can demonstrate you are NOT KILLING A SENTIENT BEING, then to abort is basically a blind shot in the dark with no science supporting it. For all you know, you are killing a sentient being, and therefore are committing murder. I'd want to be able to support my theory that the fetus isn't sentient before committing murder, as should you.Hey Flapp, let me tell you this, no science worshipping here. Go and try to tell a pregnant woman in first trimester that she'll pregnant with fetal tissue. She will tell you that she's pregnant with a baby. And she will add that she can feel the baby's movement and emotions.
Burden is on the person committing the bigger crime: abortion right versus right to life.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 30, 2020, 08:12:13 AM
Murder is unlawful because of societal reasons. It's not technically wrong. We sanction it in the death penalty. We kill others in self defense. We kill our enemies in war. But society judges that to be fine. Religious people used to kill others in the name of religion.
America is a society that embraces freedom and it should include the freedom over your own body and the right to abort. In the end society and the majority decide what is right and wrong.
I would argue the same is true for abortion. Except we can't prove its sentient. So it had even less societal or "moral" impacts. The minority want to ban it. Society wants to do it. Thus it should be allowed. Especially with America's society and its constitution.
If we can't agree on the science, cause clearly that is going to go no where. We agree that religion is not involved. Then maybe we can agree on this.
"Murder" and "killing" (or more technically "homicide") are NOT SYNONYMS.
Murder requires the actor to form intent to end a life without justification.
Killing someone in self defense, as a capital punishment, or even accidentally, is not murder.
Capital punishment exists to protect everyone who isn't murdering without good justification from those who do. Some argue that life in prison is cruel and inhumane, so putting murderers to death may be seen as less cruel.
If I'm being threatened with severe bodily injury or death, I have a natural right to defend my life and STOP THE THREAT with a reasonable amount of force. If that force I deem necessary at the time includes lethal force, then the CHANCE I MIGHT kill the attacker is real, but not guaranteed. Now, if I stop the threat, and I walk over to the unconscious attacker putting a round in his head, then that would be murder. The killing was no longer necessary to survive.
Once again, you keep falling back to arguing against religion -- something NOBODY ELSE HERE is bringing up. Morality exists in a basic sense even without "society." People with a realization of what life is and what it means to them will employ EMPATHY for other living creatures. Parents instill these values and understandings in their children even without a society and book of laws.
The Ten Commandments didn't need to exist for people to know what was wrong above all other wrongs. Stealing, murder, taking another's wife, lying, and so on all stem from the soon-to-follow Golden Rule. That one rule is based on the concept of empathy: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
Common sense -- not religion, and not "society". Even wild animals don't kill and eat their own without reason that's driven by instinct. Protecting their young, protecting a territory, defending against predators -- and not all of it requires killing to succeed. There's also a food chain, which is a totally separate concept. We're talking about within a species, e.g. Humans.
If you think the only thing keeping you from murdering another person who isn't a threat to you is "society" or "the legal system", then you'd be what's called a sociopath or psychopath. On thing all sociopaths lack is empathy as far as researchers have been able to determine. That's why most of them start out at an early age hurting/killing small animals and pets. They lack the empathy to imagine what they are doing would be like if done to them.
So, stop with the lectures on "murder is only wrong if somebody decides it's wrong." Humans have intelligence and emotions that guide us when there is nothing else to do so. I suspect you belive the concepts of right and wrong never existed before religion and government. Could not be further from reality.
Do you realize that in most cases, we expend more time, money and resources to make sure we are correct in our death sentences through appeals and reviews -- usually taking years -- to ensure we are not making a mistake than it costs to house them for life? If only we spent as much time, money and resources ensuring we aren't murdering unborn babies who did nothing "wrong."
Post by: omnigun on December 30, 2020, 09:25:08 AM
"Murder" and "killing" (or more technically "homicide") are NOT SYNONYMS.
Murder requires the actor to form intent to end a life without justification.
Killing someone in self defense, as a capital punishment, or even accidentally, is not murder.
Capital punishment exists to protect everyone who isn't murdering without good justification from those who do. Some argue that life in prison is cruel and inhumane, so putting murderers to death may be seen as less cruel.
If I'm being threatened with severe bodily injury or death, I have a natural right to defend my life and STOP THE THREAT with a reasonable amount of force. If that force I deem necessary at the time includes lethal force, then the CHANCE I MIGHT kill the attacker is real, but not guaranteed. Now, if I stop the threat, and I walk over to the unconscious attacker putting a round in his head, then that would be murder. The killing was no longer necessary to survive.
Once again, you keep falling back to arguing against religion -- something NOBODY ELSE HERE is bringing up. Morality exists in a basic sense even without "society." People with a realization of what life is and what it means to them will employ EMPATHY for other living creatures. Parents instill these values and understandings in their children even without a society and book of laws.
The Ten Commandments didn't need to exist for people to know what was wrong above all other wrongs. Stealing, murder, taking another's wife, lying, and so on all stem from the soon-to-follow Golden Rule. That one rule is based on the concept of empathy: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
Common sense -- not religion, and not "society". Even wild animals don't kill and eat their own without reason that's driven by instinct. Protecting their young, protecting a territory, defending against predators -- and not all of it requires killing to succeed. There's also a food chain, which is a totally separate concept. We're talking about within a species, e.g. Humans.
If you think the only thing keeping you from murdering another person who isn't a threat to you is "society" or "the legal system", then you'd be what's called a sociopath or psychopath. On thing all sociopaths lack is empathy as far as researchers have been able to determine. That's why most of them start out at an early age hurting/killing small animals and pets. They lack the empathy to imagine what they are doing would be like if done to them.
So, stop with the lectures on "murder is only wrong if somebody decides it's wrong." Humans have intelligence and emotions that guide us when there is nothing else to do so. I suspect you belive the concepts of right and wrong never existed before religion and government. Could not be further from reality.
Do you realize that in most cases, we expend more time, money and resources to make sure we are correct in our death sentences through appeals and reviews -- usually taking years -- to ensure we are not making a mistake than it costs to house them for life? If only we spent as much time, money and resources ensuring we aren't murdering unborn babies who did nothing "wrong."
Okay, I am fine with replacing the world "Murder" with killing. We kill others when society believes its alright to do so. Pre-meditated or not. There's millions of circumstances of why. From war to a doctor decided what life to save. I will try reason this under your assumptions that a fetus is "alive human". Everyone without government or religion values life differently. One that is productive to society, one that is family etc over others. A doctor is chosen to live over a drug user, etc. A mothers life is chosen over a unborn fetus. This is a natural human reasoning. The mother can make other children, under normal circumstances.
You say capital punishment might be justified or less cruel than life in prison. It serves to protect others and society. Abortion can be the same, it might be cruel to force the mother to conceive. It might be cruel to society to be burdened with another unwanted child. Who might suffer from neglect or abuse and create social problems later in life. I think its beyond cruel to force a life into this world that isn't wanted. Imagine if your parents never wanted you, but were forced to have you. How you would suffer. Mistakes happen but to force the results of the mistake on someone else much less an innocent child is cruel. Saying adoption or foster is not a viable solution, we all know those programs are riddled with issues. Not to mention the parents side of cruelty. Their lives forever changed, their dreams, ambitions and goals forced to change. Imagine a highschooler who suffers in school because she is forced to birth a child. She might not be able to finish school, go college or excel in life. Abortion isnt always just about ending the fetuses "life". Its about everyone involved and the future involvements of everyone including the future child.
As for the concepts of right and wrong, they have indeed existed, probably as long as humans existed. But they still evolved and changed over time. I don't believe morals are instilled on birth, they are learned. But because of that they can change, they just happen to not have changed much over time in some aspects. I can't recall any society that criminalized miscarriages. Abortion is just a purposeful miscarriage.
The whole point of the self defense argument is that valuing ones life over others is perfectly fine and normal. A mother valuing her life over an unborn fetus is normal (assuming you believe its alive, much more so if you don't) . You value your life over the other person when you choose to respond with whatever level of force you deem necessary.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 30, 2020, 09:40:45 AM
Okay, I am fine with replacing the world "Murder" with killing. We kill others when society believes its alright to do so. Pre-meditated or not. There's millions of circumstances of why. From war to a doctor decided what life to save. I will try reason this under your assumptions that a fetus is "alive human". Everyone without government or religion values life differently. One that is productive to society, one that is family etc over others. A doctor is chosen to live over a drug user, etc. A mothers life is chosen over a unborn fetus. This is a natural human reasoning. The mother can make other children, under normal circumstances.
You say capital punishment might be justified or less cruel than life in prison. It serves to protect others and society. Abortion can be the same, it might be cruel to force the mother to conceive. It might be cruel to society to be burdened with another unwanted child. Who might suffer from neglect or abuse and create social problems later in life. I think its beyond cruel to force a life into this world that isn't wanted. Imagine if your parents never wanted you, but were forced to have you. How you would suffer. Mistakes happen but to force the results of the mistake on someone else much less an innocent child is cruel. Saying adoption or foster is not a viable solution, we all know those programs are riddled with issues. Not to mention the parents side of cruelty. Their lives forever changed, their dreams, ambitions and goals forced to change. Imagine a highschooler who suffers in school because she is forced to birth a child. She might not be able to finish school, go college or excel in life. Abortion isnt always just about ending the fetuses "life". Its about everyone involved and the future involvements of everyone including the future child.
As for the concepts of right and wrong, they have indeed existed, probably as long as humans existed. But they still evolved and changed over time. I don't believe morals are instilled on birth, they are learned. But because of that they can change, they just happen to not have changed much over time in some aspects. I can't recall any society that criminalized miscarriages. Abortion is just a purposeful miscarriage.
The whole point of the self defense argument is that valuing ones life over others is perfectly fine and normal. A mother valuing her life over an unborn fetus is normal (assuming you believe its alive, much more so if you don't) . You value your life over the other person when you choose to respond with whatever level of force you deem necessary.
You can't predict what anyone's life will be like. Pretending you can is arrogant.
A person in poverty may write a book, develop a self-help program or marry into money. I can cite example after example of people who became wealthy and came from humble, if not dire, beginnings. There's no way for you to guarantee that a child born under any circumstances is sentenced to misery and a "cruel" existence. Hell, the child may prove to be the reason a junkie mother gets clean, goes back to school, or gets a better job. Improving one's own situation for the good of the child is a proven motivator for adults who beforehand only had to be responsible for themselves.
Stop playing God. There are people alive today who should not be based on your criteria of "quality of life", and they grew into great leaders and innovators.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Adaptation only happens out of necessity.
Post by: omnigun on December 30, 2020, 10:19:59 AM
You can't predict what anyone's life will be like. Pretending you can is arrogant.
A person in poverty may write a book, develop a self-help program or marry into money. I can cite example after example of people who became wealthy and came from humble, if not dire, beginnings. There's no way for you to guarantee that a child born under any circumstances is sentenced to misery and a "cruel" existence. Hell, the child may prove to be the reason a junkie mother gets clean, goes back to school, or gets a better job. Improving one's own situation for the good of the child is a proven motivator for adults who beforehand only had to be responsible for themselves.
Stop playing God. There are people alive today who should not be based on your criteria of "quality of life", and they grew into great leaders and innovators.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Adaptation only happens out of necessity.
People play "god" every day in billions scenarios. Nothing really wrong with that, also I thought you said religion isn't involved. You would be playing "god" in any self defense scenario, unless you throw up your arms and let your lord do his thing. But I digress. Those situations you cited may happen but they are not the norm. Many more turn out bad and suffer and cause suffering. Most criminals I would argue don't come from loving stable homes. That says nothing to the forced parents futures too, they might now have hardships when they wouldn't if they had an abortion.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 30, 2020, 11:14:09 AM
People play "god" every day in billions scenarios. Nothing really wrong with that, also I thought you said religion isn't involved. You would be playing "god" in any self defense scenario, unless you throw up your arms and let your lord do his thing. But I digress. Those situations you cited may happen but they are not the norm. Many more turn out bad and suffer and cause suffering. Most criminals I would argue don't come from loving stable homes. That says nothing to the forced parents futures too, they might now have hardships when they wouldn't if they had an abortion.
You're saying it's okay to play god?
That pretty much explains all of your opinions on abortion and all other ethical, moral and legal issues.
I find it hypocritical that you're against the norm for a virus that kills less than a percent of most people it infects, but you're all about norms when it comes to rationalizing murder of innocent children who have no chance to reach their potential because you think life is valueless, even after birth, if the parents do not meet some arbitrary financial standard you set.
I'm done with you. You can't keep your norms straight.
Bye, Felicia. :wave:
Post by: omnigun on December 30, 2020, 11:25:20 AM
You're saying it's okay to play god?
That pretty much explains all of your opinions on abortion and all other ethical, moral and legal issues.
I find it hypocritical that you're against the norm for a virus that kills less than a percent of most people it infects, but you're all about norms when it comes to rationalizing murder of innocent children who have no chance to reach their potential because you think life is valueless, even after birth, if the parents do not meet some arbitrary financial standard you set.
I'm done with you. You can't keep your norms straight.
Bye, Felicia. :wave:
The norm is support for abortion. You are the minority. They did polls to confirm this and is legally federally, and most states don't overly restrict it. Argentina just legalized it!!!! :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
Also we went over this, I don't think fetuses are "a life". Its a 0% death of a full human vs a virus is 1%. I was trying to explain from your point of view.
Also everyone plays "god" including you. Except you are decided to save the fetuses physical life and potentially ruining others, you are putting your own beliefs and will upon others....which by your definition is playing "god". You are telling someone else how to live their life and decide their future for them. When their decisions wont effect you. Unlike covid all the abortions in the world don't threaten anyone elses life or freedom. That's pretty commie and not American.
Lastly its not all about financial but emotional. A 16yr old is not ready to be a parent. Many people are unfit to have children regardless of wealth. They might have mental disorders, genetic disorders and other issues. To say they must never have sex or never make a mistake is cruel.
Post by: ren on December 30, 2020, 11:28:30 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 30, 2020, 12:26:44 PM
.
This is what happens when children who should have been aborted, then raised by parents unprepared for parenthood, becomes a legal adult. They become know-it-alls.
Projecting his own life story on others is "the norm," because he has no frame of reference in his limited experience as a 20-something.
I bet he wishes he'd been aborted.
I bet his parents do, too.
Life only has value if he decides it does.
Sad -- and dangerous.
Post by: aieahound on December 30, 2020, 01:02:08 PM
Flapp-of-Many Names
Is there no line you will not cross just to be a Dick ?
SnowFlapp
TRIGGERED ! :shake:
Ah heck.
Snowflapp’s in his safe space and can’t see this post anyway.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on December 30, 2020, 03:20:34 PM
Murder is unlawful because of societal reasons. It's not technically wrong. We sanction it in the death penalty. We kill others in self defense. We kill our enemies in war. But society judges that to be fine. Religious people used to kill others in the name of religion.
America is a society that embraces freedom and it should include the freedom over your own body and the right to abort. In the end society and the majority decide what is right and wrong.
I would argue the same is true for abortion. Except we can't prove its sentient. So it had even less societal or "moral" impacts. The minority want to ban it. Society wants to do it. Thus it should be allowed. Especially with America's society and its constitution.
If we can't agree on the science, cause clearly that is going to go no where. We agree that religion is not involved. Then maybe we can agree on this.
You made the argument that for abortion to be outlawed that we must first prove it is wrong. We can never prove it is wrong just like we can never prove murder is wrong.
So we can resort to other ways to justify it
Democracy - It's wrong if enough of us say it is. (opens up a can of worms)
God - It is wrong because god says it is wrong. This allows for things that are normally opinions to become more in the realm of fact. Objective morals I call them but there are many names for this concept. Of course then we have to debate (we will never all agree) religion.
Science - People try to use science to make arguments for right and wrong but they really never work, science can only ever really say whether something like this is beneficial or not given a certain definition of beneficial.
Just because it's wrong - The default justification based on someone's beliefs they can't really articulate
Post by: aletheuo137 on January 10, 2021, 05:27:36 PM
https://www.lifenews.com/2017/06/02/harvard-law-journal-concludes-unborn-babies-have-constitutional-rights/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on January 10, 2021, 06:55:12 PM
Fetal rights!
https://www.lifenews.com/2017/06/02/harvard-law-journal-concludes-unborn-babies-have-constitutional-rights/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Women's rights!
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/abortion-bans-womens-health/
Post by: ren on January 10, 2021, 06:55:47 PM
Post by: aieahound on January 10, 2021, 07:52:12 PM
Post by: Inspector on January 11, 2021, 07:14:19 AM
This topic is a rabbit hole.And TROLLING
Post by: omnigun on February 16, 2021, 01:54:53 PM
Perfect response to the religious who don't approve of abortion. 100% agree this is what true freedom is.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 16, 2021, 02:47:14 PM
You still to this day haven't been able to define when sentience begins. So, your endorsement is for an adult's "freedom of choice" even though they are murdering another human being.
You really are twisted.
Post by: omnigun on February 16, 2021, 05:04:30 PM
If you use "I'm not religious" as a copout for rejecting any code of morality, that's not freedom. That's Sociopathy.
You still to this day haven't been able to define when sentience begins. So, your endorsement is for an adult's "freedom of choice" even though they are murdering another human being.
You really are twisted.
You haven't been able to prove that they are sentient. Same ole wheel. Just like you can't prove or disprove God. So until a method comes up. Keep to yourself and your beliefs is all I and millions others ask.
Post by: macsak on February 16, 2021, 05:24:42 PM
You haven't been able to prove that they are sentient. Same ole wheel. Just like you can't prove or disprove God. So until a method comes up. Keep to yourself and your beliefs is all I and millions others ask.
yet it's ok for you to spout off your belives over and over again...
hello pot?
Post by: omnigun on February 16, 2021, 05:43:18 PM
yet it's ok for you to spout off your belives over and over again...
hello pot?
You can believe the earth is flat for all I care. Just don't force others to believe the same thing. Both sides can still preach all they want to convince others that's the 1st amendment. Just like I believe in vaccines but I don't support forcing anyone to get one.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 16, 2021, 05:44:09 PM
You haven't been able to prove that they are sentient. Same ole wheel. Just like you can't prove or disprove God. So until a method comes up. Keep to yourself and your beliefs is all I and millions others ask.
You don't have to believe in God to understand that killing a human being is murder. And if you can't disprove a fetus is sentient, then you can't say you are not committing murder.
"I didn't know" isn't a very good defense against killing unborn babies.
Post by: omnigun on February 16, 2021, 05:45:22 PM
You don't have to believe in God to understand that killing a human being is murder. And if you can't disprove a fetus is sentient, then you can't say you are not committing murder.
"I didn't know" isn't a very good defense against killing unborn babies.
I don't view it as a "human". Its not murder to me and millions of others. The burden of evidence is on you. To ban something you must first PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that its wrong.
Post by: robtmc on February 16, 2021, 05:48:00 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 16, 2021, 05:50:00 PM
I don't view it as a "human". Its not murder to me and millions of others. The burden of evidence is on you. To ban something you must first PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that its wrong.
Science differs with your viewpoint.
You -- of all people -- should never be the litmus test for what's legal, moral or ethical.
I'm not the one committing murder. The burden is on you for pushing a false narrative that sentience is unknowable and should therefore be ignored -- even though that's the primary factor YOU SAID needs to be considered.
You created a catch-22, then decided the default answer should be abortion.
Post by: ren on February 16, 2021, 06:02:33 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 16, 2021, 06:05:59 PM
someone lacked attention during adolescent development
And refuses to play catch-up.
Maybe professional therapy?
Post by: macsak on February 16, 2021, 06:32:04 PM
You can believe the earth is flat for all I care. Just don't force others to believe the same thing. Both sides can still preach all they want to convince others that's the 1st amendment. Just like I believe in vaccines but I don't support forcing anyone to get one.
that's not what you said before...
Post by: aletheuo137 on February 16, 2021, 06:46:00 PM
You haven't been able to prove that they are sentient. Same ole wheel. Just like you can't prove or disprove God. So until a method comes up. Keep to yourself and your beliefs is all I and millions others ask.Why don't you have a talk with your Mom and ask her when she was carrying you?
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on February 16, 2021, 06:53:38 PM
Science differs with your viewpoint.
You -- of all people -- should never be the litmus test for what's legal, moral or ethical.
I'm not the one committing murder. The burden is on you for pushing a false narrative that sentience is unknowable and should therefore be ignored -- even though that's the primary factor YOU SAID needs to be considered.
You created a catch-22, then decided the default answer should be abortion.
This simply doesn't work like that. Why does your opinion get to be default? By definition you put the burden of your beliefs on others. Lets say Christians and Muslims believe sex before marriage is bad. Can they ban everyone from having sex before marriage? No, they can follow their own customs and don't force legality, morality or ethics upon others.
Post by: macsak on February 16, 2021, 06:55:03 PM
Why don't you have a talk with your Mom and ask her when she was carrying you?
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
it hasn't been proven in a court of law that omnigrub is sentient...
Post by: omnigun on February 16, 2021, 06:55:18 PM
Why don't you have a talk with your Mom and ask her when she was carrying you?
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I believe she is pro choice last time I talked about it with her she was.
Post by: macsak on February 16, 2021, 06:55:45 PM
This simply doesn't work like that. Why does your opinion get to be default? By definition you put the burden of your beliefs on others. Lets say Christens and Muslims believe sex before marriage is bad. Can they ban everyone from having sex before marriage? No, they can follow their own customs and don't force legality, morality or ethics upon others.
what about the Karens?
Post by: aletheuo137 on February 16, 2021, 07:16:25 PM
I believe she is pro choice last time I talked about it with her she was.
...
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
edited by macak
Post by: aletheuo137 on February 16, 2021, 07:35:11 PM
it hasn't been proven in a court of law that omnigrub is sentient...Imagine a thread without AOG!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 16, 2021, 08:53:17 PM
This simply doesn't work like that. Why does your opinion get to be default? By definition you put the burden of your beliefs on others. Lets say Christians and Muslims believe sex before marriage is bad. Can they ban everyone from having sex before marriage? No, they can follow their own customs and don't force legality, morality or ethics upon others.
My POSITION is the default when the choice is between potential murder (you) and granting an unborn living being the RIGHT to life (me).
Post by: ren on February 17, 2021, 04:25:56 PM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 17, 2021, 08:08:18 PM
a troll thread made by a douche troll
Omni wants to talk abortion and start a thread dedicated to it then I can't really fault him for that. Don't want to talk about abortion then don't click on the thread.
Post by: omnigun on February 21, 2021, 08:45:11 AM
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/
Post by: robtmc on February 21, 2021, 11:42:58 AM
Post by: ren on February 21, 2021, 11:50:06 AM
Omni wants to talk abortion and start a thread dedicated to it then I can't really fault him for that. Don't want to talk about abortion then don't click on the thread.
City probably wouldn't have an issue if that company was legal. Don't see the point of this thread. As for drugs see nothing wrong with that, looks to be regulated.
you two are one and the same
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2021, 12:01:41 PM
Abstinence is the only form of birth control known that is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy AND disease. To deny that GLARING FACT is what's stupid.
While it should not be taught as the sole method of birth control, it should at a minimum be presented as a viable alternative.
Freedom is important to some people, as in the freedom to choose whether or not to engage in sexual behaviors prior to wanting to start a family. This includes both boys and girls.
Schools are teaching young children about Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites, Transgenders, and a host of other sexually-oriented topics. But abstinence is "stupid?"
You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's stupid.
Post by: omnigun on February 21, 2021, 03:09:56 PM
you two are one and the same
You linked two unrelated topics. This is one topic.
Post by: omnigun on February 21, 2021, 03:11:50 PM
"Abstinence teaching" is not "stupid". Only stupid people believe that.
Abstinence is the only form of birth control known that is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. To deny that GLARING FACT is what's stupid.
While it should not be taught as the sole method of birth control, it should at a minimum be presented as a viable alternative.
Freedom is important to some people, as in the freedom to choose whether or not to engage in sexual behaviors prior to wanting to start a family. This includes both boys and girls.
Schools are teaching young children about Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites, Transgenders, and a host of other sexually-oriented topics. But abstinence is "stupid?"
You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's stupid.
The current abstinence sex ed is mostly an all or nothing. Of course regular sex ed teaches you to make your own choice. But the key is it gives you multiple choices. To think that typing people will only choose abstinence is ignorant. Most ppl do not wait till marriage to have sex. Or have sex for just procreation.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2021, 03:12:24 PM
The current abstinence sex ed is mostly an all or nothing. Of course regular sex ed teaches you to make your own choice. But the key is it gives you multiple choices. To think that typing people will only choice abstinence is ignorant.
Source?
Post by: omnigun on February 21, 2021, 03:13:47 PM
Source?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abstinence-education-programs-definition-funding-and-impact-on-teen-sexual-behavior/amp/
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2021, 03:36:57 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abstinence-education-programs-definition-funding-and-impact-on-teen-sexual-behavior/amp/
Your source says the opposite of your claim:
"The current abstinence sex ed is mostly an all or nothing."
Quote
Comprehensive sex education is more diversely defined. Most generally, these programs include
medically accurate, evidence-based information about both contraception and abstinence, as well
as condoms to prevent STI transmission. Some programs, known as “abstinence-plus,” stress abstinence as the best way to prevent pregnancy and STIs, but also include information on contraception and condoms. Other programs emphasize safe-sex practices and often include information about healthy relationships and lifestyles.
So, not "all or nothing".
Post by: macsak on February 21, 2021, 03:40:49 PM
Your source says the opposite of your claim:
"The current abstinence sex ed is mostly an all or nothing."
So, not "all or nothing".
but omni is not wrong...
Post by: omnigun on February 21, 2021, 03:44:50 PM
Your source says the opposite of your claim:
"The current abstinence sex ed is mostly an all or nothing."
So, not "all or nothing".
Hmmm in practice, religious schools tend to only teach abstinence. Not sure how to prove that. 🤔 just going by people I know.
Post by: robtmc on February 21, 2021, 03:47:05 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2021, 03:48:35 PM
Hmmm in practice, religious schools tend to only teach abstinence. Not sure how to prove that. 🤔 just going by people I know.
Why can't you accept being wrong? You made a general statement that on it's face was farcical.
Now you want to cite "people I know" as a source?
Just stop.
Post by: macsak on February 21, 2021, 03:59:11 PM
Hmmm in practice, religious schools tend to only teach abstinence. Not sure how to prove that. 🤔 just going by people I know.
so you post a link in hopes of proving something you state as truth
now you admit you were only speculating on what religious schools "tend" to do?
smh
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2021, 04:08:50 PM
so you post a link in hopes of proving something you state as truth
now you admit you were only speculating on what religious schools "tend" to do?
smh
I asked for a source, and he gave me one -- direct from Google, no less!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abstinence-education-programs-definition-funding-and-impact-on-teen-sexual-behavior/amp/
The fact that his source was unknown to him before he made his assertion, coupled with the fact that the article provided evidence that refuted his assertion, is all anyone needs to know about his M.O.
He knows what he knows -- don't ask him to back it up with facts. After all, he didn't base his opinion on any facts in the first place!
I assume if I asked for the names of "people I know" and how to contact them for verification, the request would be met with Constitutional privacy concerns. :rofl:
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2021, 05:07:01 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on February 21, 2021, 06:18:13 PM
Anal, i stick to anal. Problem solved. Pull out game is strong, but no focus sometimes.Uh, might want to keep that to yourself.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2021, 06:29:14 PM
Uh, might want to keep that to yourself.
That's what she said (abstinence). :rofl:
Post by: macsak on February 21, 2021, 06:42:15 PM
Anal, i stick to anal. Problem solved. Pull out game is strong, but no focus sometimes.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
pitcher or catcher?
Post by: oldfart on February 21, 2021, 06:44:37 PM
pitcher or catcher?.....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: robtmc on February 21, 2021, 07:33:45 PM
pitcher or catcher?Who?
The millennial pissant, or??
Post by: drck1000 on February 21, 2021, 08:00:10 PM
pitcher or catcher?Wide receiver
Post by: QUIETShooter on February 21, 2021, 08:37:54 PM
Wide receiver
Or a tight end?
Post by: omnigun on February 21, 2021, 09:55:15 PM
I asked for a source, and he gave me one -- direct from Google, no less!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abstinence-education-programs-definition-funding-and-impact-on-teen-sexual-behavior/amp/
The fact that his source was unknown to him before he made his assertion, coupled with the fact that the article provided evidence that refuted his assertion, is all anyone needs to know about his M.O.
He knows what he knows -- don't ask him to back it up with facts. After all, he didn't base his opinion on any facts in the first place!
I assume if I asked for the names of "people I know" and how to contact them for verification, the request would be met with Constitutional privacy concerns. :rofl:
https://www.google.com/search?q=abstinence+only+education&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS774US774&oq=abstinence+only+education&aqs=chrome..69i57.3814j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2021, 10:38:57 PM
https://www.google.com/search?q=abstinence+only+education&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS774US774&oq=abstinence+only+education&aqs=chrome..69i57.3814j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Don't just post links. We want know how you belive it's applicable.
Do a short book report. Anyone can do a web search. Well, most of us can! :rofl:
Post by: aletheuo137 on April 27, 2021, 10:43:23 AM
https://justthenews.com/government/state-houses/gop-governors-sign-abortion-restriction-bills-oklahoma-and-montana?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on April 27, 2021, 11:04:36 AM
GOP governors sign abortion restriction bills in Oklahoma and Montana
https://justthenews.com/government/state-houses/gop-governors-sign-abortion-restriction-bills-oklahoma-and-montana?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Hope the courts overturn it! Clearly looks to be against the supreme court ruling. If we challenge 2a laws, the same goes for abortion. No hypocrites here right?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 27, 2021, 02:02:53 PM
Hope the courts overturn it! Clearly looks to be against the supreme court ruling. If we challenge 2a laws, the same goes for abortion. No hypocrites here right?
Rights are not absolute.
--Joe Biden
Constitutional rights are subject to restrictions.
--Every Democrat, including OmniGrub
No hypocrites here right?
--OmniGrub
Post by: omnigun on April 27, 2021, 02:16:29 PM
Rights are not absolute.
--Joe Biden
Constitutional rights are subject to restrictions.
--Every Democrat, including OmniGrub
No hypocrites here right?
--OmniGrub
Where did I say that? Otherwise affirmed by the supreme court.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 27, 2021, 02:35:36 PM
Where did I say that? Otherwise affirmed by the supreme court.
When you argued non-stop for red flag laws.
Post by: omnigun on April 27, 2021, 04:24:18 PM
When you argued non-stop for red flag laws.
And the courts have upheld that, thus not against the constitution. Courts interpret the constitution.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 27, 2021, 04:35:51 PM
And the courts have upheld that, thus not against the constitution. Courts interpret the constitution.
So, you're agreeing you did say what I said you did.
Glad you admit you were wrong.
Post by: omnigun on April 27, 2021, 04:45:24 PM
So, you're agreeing you did say what I said you did.
Glad you admit you were wrong.
Where did I say that? Otherwise affirmed by the supreme court.
Read the second line. #stillnotwrong
The Constitution has always had restrictions. You can't use your freedom of speech to threaten to kill someone....
Post by: aletheuo137 on April 27, 2021, 06:13:33 PM
https://justthenews.com/government/state-houses/ducey-signs-pro-life-bill-making-it-class-6-felony-perform-abortion-due?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on April 27, 2021, 06:32:26 PM
Ducey signs bill making it Class 6 felony to perform abortion due only to genetic abnormality
https://justthenews.com/government/state-houses/ducey-signs-pro-life-bill-making-it-class-6-felony-perform-abortion-due?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Stupidest law of recent history. Why would you want to burden the innocent child and parents with lifelong trouble. The main reason you have an abortion is because of health...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 27, 2021, 07:10:49 PM
Read the second line. #stillnotwrong
The Constitution has always had restrictions. You can't use your freedom of speech to threaten to kill someone....
Yes, you can. You can threaten people all day long. If the police/DA decide your comments were not given seriously or were taken out of context, your "threat" was covered as protected speech.
For example, "I will kill anyone who tries to take my gun unlawfully." Sounds like a threat, but it's not specific to an individual. Freedom of speech protects this.
Post by: omnigun on April 27, 2021, 07:43:01 PM
Yes, you can. You can threaten people all day long. If the police/DA decide your comments were not given seriously or were taken out of context, your "threat" was covered as protected speech.
For example, "I will kill anyone who tries to take my gun unlawfully." Sounds like a threat, but it's not specific to an individual. Freedom of speech protects this.
But just as you literally said yourself if it's taken seriously then it's not protected speech. Thus restrictions....
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 27, 2021, 07:46:01 PM
But just as you literally said yourself if it's taken seriously then it's not protected speech.
But, you are still allowed to speak it. There may be consequences, but nothing prevents you from speaking.
I'm still wondering how anyone "uses your freedom of speech to kill someone."
"Alexa -- shoot Omnigrub in the face."
Post by: omnigun on April 27, 2021, 07:49:31 PM
But, you are still allowed to speak it. There may be consequences, but nothing prevents you from speaking.
I'm still wondering how anyone "uses your freedom of speech to kill someone."
"Alexa -- shoot Omnigrub in the face."
If you really believe that then the second amendment covers personal nukes. :crazy:
Post by: aieahound on April 27, 2021, 07:59:32 PM
I'm still wondering how anyone "uses your freedom of speech to kill someone."Charlie Manson etc.
"Alexa -- shoot Omnigrub in the face."
If you really believe that then the second amendment covers personal nukes. :crazy:
According to Flapp you can own Any arms under the Constitution...There just may be consequences.
“There may be consequences but nothing prevents you from possessing it. “
Post by: drck1000 on April 27, 2021, 08:03:31 PM
SNIPSiri didn't find that amusing. . . :rofl:
"Alexa -- shoot Omnigrub in the face."
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 27, 2021, 09:32:05 PM
Charlie Manson etc.
According to Flapp you can own Any arms under the Constitution...There just may be consequences.
“There may be consequences but nothing prevents you from possessing it. “
Thanks for telling everyone what you think I think.
What I really think, and have stated many times, is a nuke is classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. It is indiscriminate in who it kills inside its blast radius, not including those who die from the fallout.
2A permits ARMS ... those weapons you can carry on your person to defend yourself against a threat, similar to the weapons an infantryman would carry.
Killing everyone within a 1 mile blast zone or larger would be like shooting everyone in the mall because the threat you meant to kill was there -- the rest of the dead people merely got in your way.
Post by: omnigun on April 27, 2021, 10:16:13 PM
Thanks for telling everyone what you think I think.
What I really think, and have stated many times, is a nuke is classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. It is indiscriminate in who it kills inside its blast radius, not including those who die from the fallout.
2A permits ARMS ... those weapons you can carry on your person to defend yourself against a threat, similar to the weapons an infantryman would carry.
Killing everyone within a 1 mile blast zone or larger would be like shooting everyone in the mall because the threat you meant to kill was there -- the rest of the dead people merely got in your way.
So like defining speech you recognize there are certain nuances and limits?
ARMS includes ALL weapons including nukes, regardless of destruction. Please show me where your definition of "Arms" exists where it specifically excludes nukes and show how the founding fathers separated that out.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No where in this statement says the amount of destruction, limiting who is targeted or exact ability to defend yourself or even that the purpose of arms is for defensive only.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If you as you want to interpret it with no restrictions, arms would included all weapons, the right to keep and bear would include offensive and collective purposes too not only defense.
Unless you admit you were wrong and that the supreme court can interpret these amendments within reason. Just like speech you can't threaten to kill someone in a legitimate way, you can't own nukes and there may be other reasonable limiting factors. Its all about the nuances.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 27, 2021, 10:24:50 PM
So like defining speech you recognize there are certain nuances and limits?
ARMS includes ALL weapons including nukes, regardless of destruction. Please show me where your definition of "Arms" exists where it specifically excludes nukes and show how the founding fathers separated that out.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No where in this statement says the amount of destruction, limiting who is targeted or exact ability to defend yourself or even that the purpose of arms is for defensive only.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If you as you want to interpret it with no restrictions, arms would included all weapons, the right to keep and bear would include offensive and collective purposes too not only defense.
Unless you admit you were wrong and that the supreme court can interpret these amendments within reason. Just like speech you can't threaten to kill someone in a legitimate way, you can't own nukes and there may be other reasonable limiting factors. Its all about the nuances.
Is your Googler broken again?
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/supreme-court-confirms-second-amendment-applies-bearable-arms-common-use/
Post by: omnigun on April 27, 2021, 10:28:48 PM
Is your Googler broken again?
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/supreme-court-confirms-second-amendment-applies-bearable-arms-common-use/
So you are admitting the supreme court can interpret the constitution and implement restrictions? If we follow that decision literally as in the article a portable nuke could be classified as bearable arm. But wait, you don't support classifying things isn't this ruling already a classification down to bearable arms thus voiding your argument?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 27, 2021, 10:31:09 PM
So you are admitting the supreme court can interpret the constitution and implement restrictions? If we follow that decision literally as in the article a portable nuke could be classified as bearable arm. But wait, you don't support classifying things isn't this ruling already a classification down to bearable arms thus voiding your argument?
What the hell is your problem? Do you even have a point?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 27, 2021, 11:19:54 PM
So you are admitting the supreme court can interpret the constitution and implement restrictions? If we follow that decision literally as in the article a portable nuke could be classified as bearable arm. But wait, you don't support classifying things isn't this ruling already a classification down to bearable arms thus voiding your argument?
It is LITERALLY the job of the judicial branch, not just the Supreme Court, to INTERPRET the Constitution and determine if laws and actions of the states and federal gov'ts violate the Constitution.
The courts DO NOT IMPLEMENT/ENFORCE LAWS. That's up to the Executive Branch.
The courts DO NOT WRITE LAWS. That's up to the Congress.
The restrictions you cite are IMPLEMENTED by the Congress and the President. Congress creates and passes the bills, and the President signs them into law.
Did you miss School House Rock, or is that before your time on this planet?
As for nukes, you are ignoring the fact that a nuke has no legitimate use for self defense or defense of others. It is an offensive weapon. The only time nukes have been used in history at all has been as a strategic demonstration of the power the US alone commanded -- to end an already costly world war.
I'd love to see how you might be caught alone in a dark alley, surrounded by 3-4 people intent on harming you. How, exactly, would you be able to use that nuke to defend yourself? If you survive the detonation, then you were not in any danger from the 3-4 attackers from the start! :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: aletheuo137 on April 28, 2021, 05:43:31 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/27/arizona-gov-doug-ducey-signs-sweeping-pro-life-bill-banning-down-syndrome-abortions/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on April 28, 2021, 06:11:14 AM
It is LITERALLY the job of the judicial branch, not just the Supreme Court, to INTERPRET the Constitution and determine if laws and actions of the states and federal gov'ts violate the Constitution.
The courts DO NOT IMPLEMENT/ENFORCE LAWS. That's up to the Executive Branch.
The courts DO NOT WRITE LAWS. That's up to the Congress.
The restrictions you cite are IMPLEMENTED by the Congress and the President. Congress creates and passes the bills, and the President signs them into law.
Did you miss School House Rock, or is that before your time on this planet?
As for nukes, you are ignoring the fact that a nuke has no legitimate use for self defense or defense of others. It is an offensive weapon. The only time nukes have been used in history at all has been as a strategic demonstration of the power the US alone commanded -- to end an already costly world war.
I'd love to see how you might be caught alone in a dark alley, surrounded by 3-4 people intent on harming you. How, exactly, would you be able to use that nuke to defend yourself? If you survive the detonation, then you were not in any danger from the 3-4 attackers from the start! :rofl: :rofl:
Like I said before the literal language of the 2nd ammendment makes ZERO mention of defense usage... just admit you are wrong and move on. You are already admitting that the court system interprets the laws which means there are restrictions and nuances.... unless you can show me the exact words in the second amendment that mention defense. Or specific classes of weapons. You are just wrong.
Post by: omnigun on April 28, 2021, 06:12:50 AM
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey Signs Sweeping Pro-Life Bill Banning Down Syndrome Abortions
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/27/arizona-gov-doug-ducey-signs-sweeping-pro-life-bill-banning-down-syndrome-abortions/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I hope this is stuck down by courts. This is beyond stupid both ethically and legally. And is largely unenforceable, just go to another state to get an abortion.
Post by: aieahound on April 28, 2021, 11:36:14 AM
Rights are not absolute.
--Joe Biden / and Flapp
Constitutional rights are subject to restrictions.
--Every Democrat, including OmniGrub and Flapp
Hypocrite ?
:stopjack:
These new abortion laws are heading back to the courts. They’re pushing the limits of making abortion illegal again.
Looks like Roe v. Wade will get tested under the current climate and make-up of the Court.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 28, 2021, 11:39:39 AM
Like I said before the literal language of the 2nd ammendment makes ZERO mention of defense usage... just admit you are wrong and move on. You are already admitting that the court system interprets the laws which means there are restrictions and nuances.... unless you can show me the exact words in the second amendment that mention defense. Or specific classes of weapons. You are just wrong.
You really want to debate the 2A based on YOUR limited vocabulary and English skills?
Amendments are written using common English terms. 2A doesn't literally say "well trained and equipped", but it DOES literally say "well regulated," which Liberals try to spin into "regulated by passing a ton of laws to limit the right."
Just stop.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 28, 2021, 11:40:30 AM
Hypocrite ?
Troll?
(rhetorical)
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
Post by: aieahound on April 28, 2021, 11:41:19 AM
:geekdanc:
Post by: omnigun on April 28, 2021, 12:08:11 PM
On point Troll.
:geekdanc:
I give up he will never admit he is wrong even though he is not directly admitting it when posting. I give up.
:stopjack:
Post by: omnigun on April 28, 2021, 12:11:08 PM
Hypocrite ?
:stopjack:
These new abortion laws are heading back to the courts. They’re pushing the limits of making abortion illegal again.
Looks like Roe v. Wade will get tested under the current climate and make-up of the Court.
Exactly I fear for the future of abortion. Conservative court is great for gun laws. Horrible for freedom of your body.
I think people who are anti abortion are stupid, how can you want to bring genetic issues and unwanted babies into this world to suffer. IF they were truly religious they shouldn't want all that unneeded suffering in the world. But what do I know, I am not particularly religious. Maybe some peoples gods want suffering in this world.
Post by: macsak on April 28, 2021, 12:12:50 PM
I give up he will never admit he is wrong even though he is not directly admitting it when posting. I give up.
:stopjack:
hello pot, meet kettle
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 28, 2021, 12:20:07 PM
Exactly I fear for the future of abortion. Conservative court is great for gun laws. Horrible for freedom of your body.
I think people who are anti abortion are stupid, how can you want to bring genetic issues and unwanted babies into this world to suffer. IF they were truly religious they shouldn't want all that unneeded suffering in the world. But what do I know, I am not particularly religious. Maybe some peoples gods want suffering in this world.
Roe v. Wade was a bad legal decision on its face.
The person who was named in the lawsuit as "Roe" said she wished she'd never brought the legal action and became a staunch pro-life advocate after the Supreme Court ruling.
We've advanced SIGNIFICANTLY since the 1970s in what we know scientifically about the development of humans in the womb.
The stage of development does not make the zygote, embryo, fetus or baby any other species than what it is starting at conception: human.
Post by: aieahound on April 28, 2021, 12:38:26 PM
This will be interesting.
It will be the chance at overturning Roe v. Wade for anti-abortionists.
Or at least putting restrictions on it.
Will the pendulum swing?
Post by: omnigun on April 28, 2021, 01:50:41 PM
hello pot, meet kettle
I guess us 3 are a collection of pots and kettles.
Post by: omnigun on April 28, 2021, 01:52:16 PM
Hence back to Court in this climate and SCOTUS current make-up.
This will be interesting.
It will be the chance at overturning Roe v. Wade for anti-abortionists.
Or at least putting restrictions on it.
Will the pendulum swing?
I think the supreme court knows what's at stake and will not overturn it. If they do 100% the democrats will pack the court.
Post by: drck1000 on April 28, 2021, 01:55:08 PM
hello pot, meet kettleI thought you'd be the kettle. . . ???
:rofl:
Post by: omnigun on April 28, 2021, 01:55:17 PM
Roe v. Wade was a bad legal decision on its face.
The person who was named in the lawsuit as "Roe" said she wished she'd never brought the legal action and became a staunch pro-life advocate after the Supreme Court ruling.
We've advanced SIGNIFICANTLY since the 1970s in what we know scientifically about the development of humans in the womb.
The stage of development does not make the zygote, embryo, fetus or baby any other species than what it is starting at conception: human.
There are millions of "Roes" who would gladly take up the case. The court case is not about one women. Without going full circle science can prove that a lump of cells without a developed brain can't be sentient. Also we as a society have evolved to a point that we don't want needless suffering. With the allowing of euthanasia etc. No child or parent should suffer genetic or physical deformities if it can be prevented. Or even the other burdens of childbirth, if they choose not to.
You can't preach for freedom of choice of guns, words and religion but ignore ones freedom of their own body. After all many of you are anti mandatory vax, mask and other covid protocols by preaching freedom of choice.
Post by: aletheuo137 on April 28, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
I thought you'd be the kettle. . . ???He don't own any pots or kettles!
:rofl:
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 28, 2021, 02:37:01 PM
There are millions of "Roes" who would gladly take up the case. The court case is not about one women. Without going full circle science can prove that a lump of cells without a developed brain can't be sentient. Also we as a society have evolved to a point that we don't want needless suffering. With the allowing of euthanasia etc. No child or parent should suffer genetic or physical deformities if it can be prevented. Or even the other burdens of childbirth, if they choose not to.
You can't preach for freedom of choice of guns, words and religion but ignore ones freedom of their own body. After all many of you are anti mandatory vax, mask and other covid protocols by preaching freedom of choice.
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
How many times must you repeat yourself?
How many comments must you repetitively respond to as if it's your job?
Enough is enough. Too much is too much.
Post by: aletheuo137 on April 29, 2021, 07:39:04 AM
Broken record!
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
How many times must you repeat yourself?
How many comments must you repetitively respond to as if it's your job?
Enough is enough. Too much is too much.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on April 29, 2021, 08:33:03 AM
Broken record!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Gotta keep saying it till it gets through his thick skull. :rofl:
Post by: drck1000 on April 29, 2021, 08:41:22 AM
He don't own any pots or kettles!Or pot or kettle components. . . :crazy:
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on April 29, 2021, 08:46:56 AM
Or pot or kettle components. . . :crazy:He sure knows alot for someone who doesn't own anything!!!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Rocky on May 06, 2021, 10:28:52 AM
Post by: jc2721 on May 06, 2021, 02:38:31 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8PD4g5Qm.jpg)Only if she...
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Post by: Brystont1 on May 06, 2021, 03:25:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8PD4g5Qm.jpg)
We got a swallower here
Post by: mrgaf on May 06, 2021, 07:06:08 PM
We got a swallower here
Deep throat….. :geekdanc:
Post by: aletheuo137 on May 18, 2021, 08:47:27 AM
https://rumble.com/vh8v77-scotus-to-hear-mississippi-abortion-case.html
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on May 18, 2021, 09:20:43 AM
SCOTUS to Hear Mississippi Abortion Case
https://rumble.com/vh8v77-scotus-to-hear-mississippi-abortion-case.html
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I fear for this case. I hope nothing negative happens for abortion rights.
Post by: aletheuo137 on May 25, 2021, 02:00:11 PM
https://rumble.com/vhm6gr-the-best-argument-youll-ever-hear-against-abortion-charlie-kirk.html
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 12, 2021, 07:57:59 AM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/manchin-delivers-blow-dems-abortion-agenda-will-support-hyde-amendment/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: oldfart on June 12, 2021, 09:25:35 AM
The BEST Argument You'll Ever Hear Against Abortion | Charlie Kirk==========
https://rumble.com/vhm6gr-the-best-argument-youll-ever-hear-against-abortion-charlie-kirk.html
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I like that video.
I had a chance to babysit some kids last night including a real little guy.
It reminded me how much work it is to raise kids.
It reminded me how precious life is.
Without kids, we wouldn't be here reading this.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 12, 2021, 02:12:50 PM
==========Well said! Life is to be cherished and valued!
I like that video.
I had a chance to babysit some kids last night including a real little guy.
It reminded me how much work it is to raise kids.
It reminded me how precious life is.
Without kids, we wouldn't be here reading this.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: oldfart on June 12, 2021, 02:23:02 PM
Well said! Life is to be cherished and valued!....
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I dunno about you guys, but it seems like a no-brainer to me.
No babies=extinction
Post by: omnigun on June 12, 2021, 02:31:06 PM
Manchin Delivers Blow To Dems’ Abortion Agenda – Will Support Hyde Amendment
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/manchin-delivers-blow-dems-abortion-agenda-will-support-hyde-amendment/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Dang he seemed reasonable 😕 this is the first thing I can think of recently that he did that was stupid. Oh well no one's perfect.
Post by: omnigun on June 12, 2021, 02:31:55 PM
....
I dunno about you guys, but it seems like a no-brainer to me.
No babies=extinction
Abortion doesn't mean stop all babies... only the unwanted or damaged. I'd argue it's great for evolution and the human race.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 12, 2021, 02:33:50 PM
Dang he seemed reasonable 😕 this is the first thing I can think of recently that he did that was stupid. Oh well no one's perfect.
#EveryoneWhoDisagreesWithMeIsStupid
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 12, 2021, 02:33:51 PM
....Well it would take exercising your gray matter.
I dunno about you guys, but it seems like a no-brainer to me.
No babies=extinction
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on June 12, 2021, 02:36:19 PM
The BEST Argument You'll Ever Hear Against Abortion | Charlie Kirk
https://rumble.com/vhm6gr-the-best-argument-youll-ever-hear-against-abortion-charlie-kirk.html
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I stopped the video when the idiot said it's not science when a sperm meets an egg but the magic man in the sky :rofl: :rofl:
As for the previous DNA argument, you are still forcing a grown human to do something against their will.
Post by: oldfart on June 12, 2021, 02:44:46 PM
Abortion doesn't mean stop all babies... only the unwanted or damaged. I'd argue it's great for evolution and the human race....
"Unwanted"
I have no words.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 12, 2021, 02:53:38 PM
...Tell him to go find the gosl post!
"Unwanted"
I have no words.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 12, 2021, 03:03:25 PM
...
"Unwanted"
I have no words.
Since the aborted were never given a chance to be adopted, it's impossible to believe that the unborn children were unwanted by anyone and everyone.
Just because the bio parent/s don't want them doesn't make them "unwanted."
Pretty flimsy justification for murder.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 12, 2021, 03:30:12 PM
https://youtu.be/u7-E3fcYReA
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: groveler on June 12, 2021, 03:38:48 PM
3-year-old boy's prayer for Pre-K class goes viralObviously not a DOE union school in Hawaii.
https://youtu.be/u7-E3fcYReA
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
;)
Post by: omnigun on June 12, 2021, 04:19:53 PM
Since the aborted were never given a chance to be adopted, it's impossible to believe that the unborn children were unwanted by anyone and everyone.
Just because the bio parent/s don't want them doesn't make them "unwanted."
Pretty flimsy justification for murder.
Unwanted by the parents. You are still forcing someone to do something for 9 months. Let's say they are born. Then they have to live life potentially with parents who were not ready, didn't want etc them. Or if they are adopted they will wonder about their birth parents. If you abort them they will know none of this. It's before they even are capable of thought.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 12, 2021, 04:25:14 PM
Unwanted by the parents. You are still forcing someone to do something for 9 months. Let's say they are born. Then they have to live life potentially with parents who were not ready, didn't want etc them. Or if they are adopted they will wonder about their birth parents. If you abort them they will know none of this. It's before they even are capable of thought.
You mean, NATURE is forcing them to carry the child THEY CREATED until it's born?
Oh, the humanity!!
Post by: omnigun on June 12, 2021, 04:31:02 PM
You mean, NATURE is forcing them to carry the child THEY CREATED until it's born?
Oh, the humanity!!
Nature says to be free but we still lock people up for crimes. NATURE says to live but people can die/suicide. NATURE says to procreate but people still masterbate and periods exist. 🙄
Mistakes happen, humans ain't perfect.
Not to mention NATURE has natural selection so the healthy live.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 12, 2021, 04:57:30 PM
Nature says to be free but we still lock people up for crimes. NATURE says to live but people can die/suicide. NATURE says to procreate but people still masterbate and periods exist. 🙄
Mistakes happen, humans ain't perfect.
Not to mention NATURE has natural selection so the healthy live.
Nature doesn't "say" anything. To assign human traits to nature is ignorant and stupid.
So much insanity in your post.
Post by: omnigun on June 12, 2021, 06:52:32 PM
Nature doesn't "say" anything. To assign human traits to nature is ignorant and stupid.
So much insanity in your post.
That's what you did, showing you what you sound like. Wasn't aware natural selection was a trait.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 12, 2021, 07:24:06 PM
That's what you did, showing you what you sound like. Wasn't aware natural selection was a trait.
Wrong. I accurately attributed the 9 month gestation period to nature (as in "a natural process") while you tried to turn it into one human forcing another to carry a child for 9 months.
Argue some more, troll boy.
Post by: omnigun on June 12, 2021, 08:17:01 PM
Wrong. I accurately attributed the 9 month gestation period to nature (as in "a natural process") while you tried to turn it into one human forcing another to carry a child for 9 months.
Argue some more, troll boy.
Natural processes can be easily stopped by human decisions. Hell even animals are capable of thought and interfering with nature.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 12, 2021, 10:16:40 PM
Natural processes can be easily stopped by human decisions. Hell even animals are capable of thought and interfering with nature.
Easily stopped? interesting that you'd characterize an abortion as "easy."
I guess since you've never had one yourself and never will, it doesn't get any easier, huh?
What a mysogynistic moron.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 15, 2021, 02:15:41 PM
https://www.dailywire.com/news/teen-influencer-with-26-million-followers-tells-fans-hes-pro-life-abortion-is-killing-someone
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aieahound on June 16, 2021, 01:28:00 PM
Abortion doesn't mean stop all babies... only the unwanted or damaged. I'd argue it's great for evolution and the human race.
:wtf:
That statement is fawked up shit no matter which side of the aisle you sit on.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 16, 2021, 01:33:36 PM
:wtf:
That statement is fawked up shit no matter which side of the aisle you sit on.
There's a book about downs. In that since there are way more today than 40 years ago, downs is our next evolution change. I mean a person with downs won't start a war, won't rob someone, won't do many things knowingly. So it would bring the human race back to being nice toward each other. But then out technology would not advance either.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 16, 2021, 01:40:15 PM
There's a book about downs. In that since there are way more today than 40 years ago, downs is our next evolution change. I mean a person with downs won't start a war, won't rob someone, won't do many things knowingly. So it would bring the human race back to being nice toward each other. But then out technology would not advance either.
Imagine a world in which downs syndrome is considered normal, and those without the "proper chromosomes" are seen as a threat to the survival of the race and the planet.
Then imagine if expectant parents started aborting all non-downs babies, because they are not "wanted."
If you're okay with aborting kids with DS now, then you must also okay with aborting all non-DS babies if that's where we wind up.
Post by: omnigun on June 16, 2021, 08:23:08 PM
Imagine a world in which downs syndrome is considered normal, and those without the "proper chromosomes" are seen as a threat to the survival of the race and the planet.
Then imagine if expectant parents started aborting all non-downs babies, because they are not "wanted."
If you're okay with aborting kids with DS now, then you must also okay with aborting all non-DS babies if that's where we wind up.
There's a book about downs. In that since there are way more today than 40 years ago, downs is our next evolution change. I mean a person with downs won't start a war, won't rob someone, won't do many things knowingly. So it would bring the human race back to being nice toward each other. But then out technology would not advance either.
I hope you are both sarcastic.... :wtf: :wacko:
Post by: omnigun on June 16, 2021, 08:23:39 PM
:wtf:
That statement is fawked up shit no matter which side of the aisle you sit on.
Why? The truth hurts and isn't always politically correct.
Post by: macsak on June 16, 2021, 08:50:54 PM
Why? The truth hurts and isn't always politically correct.
your truth, which equals opinion...
Post by: drck1000 on June 16, 2021, 09:06:12 PM
your truth, which equals opinion...#justasgoodasprovenincourt
Post by: omnigun on June 16, 2021, 10:26:46 PM
your truth, which equals opinion...
Can you disprove my opinion?
Post by: macsak on June 16, 2021, 10:47:52 PM
Can you disprove my opinion?
you made the statement that it was truth, you prove it...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 16, 2021, 10:48:26 PM
Can you disprove my opinion?
Which one.
You have at least one opinion on EVERY-F*CKING-THING. :popcorn:
Post by: aieahound on June 16, 2021, 11:00:01 PM
Why? The truth hurts and isn't always politically correct.
Seriously.
Only the unwanted or the damaged ?
Great for evolution and the human race ?
:wtf:
And I’m on the it’s the women’s choice if she can live with it aisle.
Fawk ! I’m with Flapp now. Sometimes just stop. Or hear yourself.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 16, 2021, 11:05:33 PM
I hope you are both sarcastic.... :wtf: :wacko:
Missing the point.... as usual.
Post by: ren on June 16, 2021, 11:54:32 PM
Abortion doesn't mean stop all babies... only the unwanted or damaged. I'd argue it's great for evolution and the human race.
Obviously you were dropped on your head during delivery and your moral compass is way out of whack. That's a very terrible, borderline evil statement about abortions. Your statement marginalizes life. You should check yourself. You need Jesus.
Post by: omnigun on June 17, 2021, 06:01:51 AM
you made the statement that it was truth, you prove it...
Being born with genetic issues is not good for a species. I hope I don't need to "prove" that for you.
Also for survival, being born incomplete is also not beneficial. Do I have to prove that lacking parts is a negative for survival?
Lastly are you telling me that being unwanted is a positive environment for a child? Being born with parents who are unable to care for you? Perhaps druggie? Or someone too young? Imagine someone forcing you to be born into a negative environment.
Post by: omnigun on June 17, 2021, 06:05:32 AM
Obviously you were dropped on your head during delivery and your moral compass is way out of whack. That's a very terrible, borderline evil statement about abortions. Your statement marginalizes life. You should check yourself. You need Jesus.
I prefer to try look at things more scientifically. Funny when you mention morality and you are trying to force a person to do something against their will. Or trying have a child born into a negative environment. I think that's more immoral. 🤔
Post by: omnigun on June 17, 2021, 06:14:50 AM
Seriously.
Only the unwanted or the damaged ?
Great for evolution and the human race ?
:wtf:
And I’m on the it’s the women’s choice if she can live with it aisle.
Fawk ! I’m with Flapp now. Sometimes just stop. Or hear yourself.
I hear myself perfectly fine. Unfortunate that you are anti choice and pro suffering now. 😕
Sorry that my belief is that children should be healthy and wanted before being born into this world.
Alot of these morality questions come from do you think the blob of cells is "a fully conscious human".
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 17, 2021, 07:56:20 AM
https://hannity.com/media-room/pelosi-pressed-on-abortion-is-an-unborn-baby-at-15-weeks-a-human-being/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: ren on June 17, 2021, 07:58:09 AM
I prefer to try look at things more scientifically. Funny when you mention morality and you are trying to force a person to do something against their will. Or trying have a child born into a negative environment. I think that's more immoral. 🤔
Conception is a choice - exigent circumstances withheld. I never said anything about forcing a person to do ANYTHING. That is the problem with you posting here - you interject your responses with lies about what people said.
Post by: omnigun on June 17, 2021, 11:37:55 AM
Conception is a choice - exigent circumstances withheld. I never said anything about forcing a person to do ANYTHING. That is the problem with you posting here - you interject your responses with lies about what people said.
Are people capable of changing their minds? Is sex only done for the sole sake of procreation?
You are anti abortion, thus anti choice. Unless you can explain to be a scenario both exist.
Post by: omnigun on June 17, 2021, 11:40:16 AM
PELOSI PRESSED on ABORTION: ‘Is an Unborn Baby at 15 Weeks a Human Being?’
https://hannity.com/media-room/pelosi-pressed-on-abortion-is-an-unborn-baby-at-15-weeks-a-human-being/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Dang first time in a while that I can remember where I thought pelosi did good. :shaka:
Post by: ren on June 17, 2021, 12:03:40 PM
Are people capable of changing their minds? Is sex only done for the sole sake of procreation?
You are anti abortion, thus anti choice. Unless you can explain to be a scenario both exist.
Hey tool - where did I say I was anti abortion or anti choice? I didn't vote in your poll. I was referring to your fucked up statement about how you view life. China views life the same as you do.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 17, 2021, 12:12:40 PM
PELOSI PRESSED on ABORTION: ‘Is an Unborn Baby at 15 Weeks a Human Being?’
https://hannity.com/media-room/pelosi-pressed-on-abortion-is-an-unborn-baby-at-15-weeks-a-human-being/
Completely and undeniably failed to answer the question.
The Democrats give millions to Planned Parenthood. If they supported the "right to choose", Congress would also appropriate the SAME AMOUNT OF TAX PAYER DOLLARS to groups that support alternatives to abortion -- you know ... actual "choices."
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 17, 2021, 01:16:45 PM
Hey tool - where did I say I was anti abortion or anti choice? I didn't vote in your poll. I was referring to your fucked up statement about how you view life. China views life the same as you do.
At least in China you can have more than 1 child now.
Post by: omnigun on June 17, 2021, 02:44:37 PM
Hey tool - where did I say I was anti abortion or anti choice? I didn't vote in your poll. I was referring to your fucked up statement about how you view life. China views life the same as you do.
Since all the comments and content so far have not had any support. And you are brining up topics that anti's use. Its a bit obvious...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 17, 2021, 03:08:33 PM
Since all the comments and content so far have not had any support. And you are brining up topics that anti's use. Its a bit obvious...
you left out IN YOUR OPINION.
:crazy:
Typical Liberal mindset. If you say you support X, then you MUST not support any of the opposing views of X.
Tell us again who's "always all or nothing."
Post by: macsak on June 17, 2021, 03:17:21 PM
Since all the comments and content so far have not had any support. And you are brining up topics that anti's use. Its a bit obvious...
soaking topics in salt water?
Post by: omnigun on June 17, 2021, 04:26:36 PM
you left out IN YOUR OPINION.
:crazy:
Typical Liberal mindset. If you say you support X, then you MUST not support any of the opposing views of X.
Tell us again who's "always all or nothing."
Not really. If I kept listing the reasons and explanations that there are no higher beings. And I've never mentioned I was religious.
Would you assume I was a Christian?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 17, 2021, 05:27:21 PM
Not really. If I kept listing the reasons and explanations that there are no higher beings. And I've never mentioned I was religious.
Would you assume I was a Christian?
Assumption is the mother of all f*ck-ups.
That's half your problem here. You ASSUME that everyone else follows the same thought processes you do. Just because you make faulty assumptions time after time doesn't mean the rest of us are just as bad.
Once you've lived long enough and learned from your and others' mistakes, you stop doing stupid things as often such as making unfounded assumptions about people.
You assume I'm Christian, don't you? But you know nothing about me that I don't tell you.
Suffice it to say I was raised going to Sunday School and attending church until I went to College. I can count the number of times since then that I've attended a service other than a baptism or wedding on one hand. So, how "Christian" does that make me?
It doesn't matter where you get your morals as long as you have them. I think you never really learned the important moral lessons. The whole world revolves around you, your opinions and the law. Not much else seems to be driving your ethics.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 17, 2021, 06:31:27 PM
Assumption is the mother of all f*ck-ups.Refund needed, didnt teach econ, ethics, climate, marketing, logic.
That's half your problem here. You ASSUME that everyone else follows the same thought processes you do. Just because you make faulty assumptions time after time doesn't mean the rest of us are just as bad.
Once you've lived long enough and learned from your and others' mistakes, you stop doing stupid things as often such as making unfounded assumptions about people.
You assume I'm Christian, don't you? But you know nothing about me that I don't tell you.
Suffice it to say I was raised going to Sunday School and attending church until I went to College. I can count the number of times since then that I've attended a service other than a baptism or wedding on one hand. So, how "Christian" does that make me?
It doesn't matter where you get your morals as long as you have them. I think you never really learned the important moral lessons. The whole world revolves around you, your opinions and the law. Not much else seems to be driving your ethics.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 17, 2021, 06:46:46 PM
Refund needed, didnt teach econ, ethics, climate, marketing, logic.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You left out the biggie:
English vocabulary, grammar and reading comprehension. Without that, teaching the other subjects you mentioned would have been much more difficult.
Reading is Fun-Demental!
Post by: omnigun on June 17, 2021, 08:05:26 PM
Assumption is the mother of all f*ck-ups.
That's half your problem here. You ASSUME that everyone else follows the same thought processes you do. Just because you make faulty assumptions time after time doesn't mean the rest of us are just as bad.
Once you've lived long enough and learned from your and others' mistakes, you stop doing stupid things as often such as making unfounded assumptions about people.
You assume I'm Christian, don't you? But you know nothing about me that I don't tell you.
Suffice it to say I was raised going to Sunday School and attending church until I went to College. I can count the number of times since then that I've attended a service other than a baptism or wedding on one hand. So, how "Christian" does that make me?
It doesn't matter where you get your morals as long as you have them. I think you never really learned the important moral lessons. The whole world revolves around you, your opinions and the law. Not much else seems to be driving your ethics.
I know you are against abortion. And cite God in your beliefs. Not what religion. But if I were to guess you are religious.
Unless everyone will document every single aspect of their thoughts. Assumptions need to be made. Yall assume many things about me.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 17, 2021, 10:59:03 PM
I know you are against abortion. And cite God in your beliefs. Not what religion. But if I were to guess you are religious.
Unless everyone will document every single aspect of their thoughts. Assumptions need to be made. Yall assume many things about me.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
I am not against abortion. Who told you that? Sure wasn't me.
I'm simply arguing that abortion should have LIMITS and RESTRICTIONS to protect the life of the unborn child. Science has advanced significantly since Roe v Wade, and the law continues to be skewed toward a political ends instead of following the science.
Abortion is a valuable OPTION in limited cases of incest, rape and in cases which put the mother's life at risk. That decision is for the family and doctor to make.
But you support abortion as birth control -- free, frequent and no consequences. That's an amoral approach.
I'm not religious. I argue sometimes from a religious viewpoint, but only because that's sometimes the best way to explain right, wrong and consequences. Most people have at least some background in religion, so it's a good place to find common understanding of principles and values.
The main difference between you and me is I respect the beliefs of people who follow religion, I understand Christianity because I studied it, and I don't belittle anyone who chooses to believe in God, because I'd rather have that than someone who thinks life is all about personal gain and helping others is for suckers.
Your assumptions wind up digging holes that you refuse to acknowledge were wrong. Then you insult the religion you wrongly assume I follow. Petty and ineffective, not to mention something an asshole would do considering the country was founded to in part permit freedom to worship as one wants -- a right that happens to be the FIRST IN A LIST OF CIVIL RIGHTS called "The Bill of Rights."
Just because you don't like religion, you think you have a superior opinion. You DO have a religion. It's called Liberalism. Call yourself whatever you like, but your idealogical BS you post daily is 80% Democrat Liberal Socialist Leftist dogma.
Get over yourself. Your assumptions are in your little mind. Maybe you should try ASKING the person you're judging whether your assumptions are even close to accurate. You'll be surprised how less often you'll get into arguments over bogus assumptions.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 18, 2021, 06:50:54 AM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQXu-SZ6JxI
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on June 18, 2021, 06:54:51 AM
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
I am not against abortion. Who told you that? Sure wasn't me.
I'm simply arguing that abortion should have LIMITS and RESTRICTIONS to protect the life of the unborn child. Science has advanced significantly since Roe v Wade, and the law continues to be skewed toward a political ends instead of following the science.
Abortion is a valuable OPTION in limited cases of incest, rape and in cases which put the mother's life at risk. That decision is for the family and doctor to make.
But you support abortion as birth control -- free, frequent and no consequences. That's an amoral approach.
I'm not religious. I argue sometimes from a religious viewpoint, but only because that's sometimes the best way to explain right, wrong and consequences. Most people have at least some background in religion, so it's a good place to find common understanding of principles and values.
The main difference between you and me is I respect the beliefs of people who follow religion, I understand Christianity because I studied it, and I don't belittle anyone who chooses to believe in God, because I'd rather have that than someone who thinks life is all about personal gain and helping others is for suckers.
Your assumptions wind up digging holes that you refuse to acknowledge were wrong. Then you insult the religion you wrongly assume I follow. Petty and ineffective, not to mention something an asshole would do considering the country was founded to in part permit freedom to worship as one wants -- a right that happens to be the FIRST IN A LIST OF CIVIL RIGHTS called "The Bill of Rights."
Just because you don't like religion, you think you have a superior opinion. You DO have a religion. It's called Liberalism. Call yourself whatever you like, but your idealogical BS you post daily is 80% Democrat Liberal Socialist Leftist dogma.
Get over yourself. Your assumptions are in your little mind. Maybe you should try ASKING the person you're judging whether your assumptions are even close to accurate. You'll be surprised how less often you'll get into arguments over bogus assumptions.
Lol you actually think I'm a liberal what an wrong assumption. 🤣
I am not anti religion another wrong assumption. I'm anti religion in government and influencing others. You are free to follow whatever rules you want. But don't for a second force that on another person. Don't like abortion? Don't do it. Don't make rules for others based on your religion, your perceived morals. That's such a "liberal" thing to do.
Just like blm and their forcing of perceived racist sjw stuff on others. You are what you hate and are blind to it.
If you don't want to use abortion as birth control don't. But don't force that opinion on others. That's the true conservative way. You liberal.
Post by: ren on June 18, 2021, 08:02:14 AM
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 18, 2021, 08:54:48 AM
https://hannity.com/media-room/just-in-catholic-bishops-advance-policy-that-could-deny-communion-for-biden-pelosi-over-abortion/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 18, 2021, 09:15:00 AM
I treat abortion like rights. By removing the option, you take it away from everyone. But by allowing it, 1 can choose to get 1 or not. And that decision would be based on their own morals/ethics and situation. And they will have to live with what they have done for X reason. What another person wants to do is none of my business.
There are many situations that could warrant 1 and just as many that don't. So again, it all falls on each individuals own morals/situation.
My POV is coming as guy who fucked around a lot b4 getting married and had a few prego scares. So abortion was always on the table. That's probably my main drive to being OK with it. Had I not been able to score as often, maybe my POV might have been different.
What I think should be done is for the father for an unmarried couple to agree to pay any child support. If no agreement is signed, then they are off the hook forever and all finances falls on the woman. Since the man has zero say in an abortion or not.
Post by: ren on June 18, 2021, 03:58:31 PM
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 21, 2021, 12:17:44 PM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/supports-right-choose-psaki-asked-biden-believes-15-week-old-unborn-baby-human-video/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on June 21, 2021, 12:55:19 PM
‘He Supports the Right to Choose’ – Psaki When Asked if Biden Believes a 15-Week-Old Unborn Baby is a Human Being (VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/supports-right-choose-psaki-asked-biden-believes-15-week-old-unborn-baby-human-video/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Go Biden! If only he adjusted some his other ideas he would be an even better president. Hope he realizes the same freedom to choose applies to guns too.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 21, 2021, 01:03:18 PM
Go Biden! If only he adjusted some his other ideas he would be an even better president. Hope he realizes the same freedom to choose applies to guns too.
Same could be said with your belief in Trump. "if only he adjusted some his other ideas, he would be an even better president."
Post by: oldfart on June 21, 2021, 01:22:51 PM
Nobody ever thinks about asking the baby.
If I put a loudspeaker up against the womb and asked the baby if it would prefer to live or die, what would be the response?
Yup the baby would just keep on living (most of the time).
Well you could argue that the baby doesn't understand.....but if you asked a 1 month old baby the same question would they understand?
How about a 2 month old? Or 3 or 4 month old?
I guess I support the right to choose after all. As long as EVERYONE has the right, including the baby.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 21, 2021, 02:16:44 PM
I support the baby's right to choose whether or not he/she lives or dies.Ditto!
Nobody ever thinks about asking the baby.
If I put a loudspeaker up against the womb and asked the baby if it would prefer to live or die, what would be the response?
Yup the baby would just keep on living (most of the time).
Well you could argue that the baby doesn't understand.....but if you asked a 1 month old baby the same question would they understand?
How about a 2 month old? Or 3 or 4 month old?
I guess I support the right to choose after all. As long as EVERYONE has the right, including the baby.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 21, 2021, 02:20:54 PM
https://youtu.be/wQP1pdkZhms
Post by: omnigun on June 21, 2021, 02:25:35 PM
Same could be said with your belief in Trump. "if only he adjusted some his other ideas, he would be an even better president."
True, but Biden has less ideas/personality to adjust in my opinion.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 21, 2021, 02:26:01 PM
I support the baby's right to choose whether or not he/she lives or dies.
Nobody ever thinks about asking the baby.
If I put a loudspeaker up against the womb and asked the baby if it would prefer to live or die, what would be the response?
Yup the baby would just keep on living (most of the time).
Well you could argue that the baby doesn't understand.....but if you asked a 1 month old baby the same question would they understand?
How about a 2 month old? Or 3 or 4 month old?
I guess I support the right to choose after all. As long as EVERYONE has the right, including the baby.
https://youtu.be/eWsm2JnDIC0
Post by: omnigun on June 21, 2021, 02:29:45 PM
I support the baby's right to choose whether or not he/she lives or dies.
Nobody ever thinks about asking the baby.
If I put a loudspeaker up against the womb and asked the baby if it would prefer to live or die, what would be the response?
Yup the baby would just keep on living (most of the time).
Well you could argue that the baby doesn't understand.....but if you asked a 1 month old baby the same question would they understand?
How about a 2 month old? Or 3 or 4 month old?
I guess I support the right to choose after all. As long as EVERYONE has the right, including the baby.
There would be no response its not alive/sentient. You would have better luck trying to ask a potato, or the hair that you shed. If you use that "understanding" argument then everything is alive. Dogs deserve human status, fish, whales etc. Are they all humans? Are you Vegan?
Treat it as something in the present not what its far future can be. We all would be worse than Hitler for all the missing children from sperm or for the ladies, periods. Once sentience is gained its gained for life until death or permanent loss of mind. But its not retroactive.
Post by: macsak on June 21, 2021, 02:46:01 PM
True, but Biden has less ideas/personality to adjust in my opinion.
first time EVAR
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 21, 2021, 03:02:38 PM
True, but Biden has less ideas/personality to adjust in my opinion.If trump adjusted said attitude/ideas he would be a better president
Feelings>results
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 21, 2021, 03:17:22 PM
That likely applies to state and local elections, too, since it's difficult to see you changing that criteria based on the level of office.
Post by: omnigun on June 21, 2021, 03:27:19 PM
If trump adjusted said attitude/ideas he would be a better president
Feelings>results
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Applies to results too. Biden so far has produced more results that I like than Trump. Adjusting to amount of time in office.
Post by: omnigun on June 21, 2021, 03:28:59 PM
If you vote for a president based on personality, I strongly suggest you never vote in the general election ever again.
That likely applies to state and local elections, too, since it's difficult to see you changing that criteria based on the level of office.
Personality is just one facet to factor. You can't ignore it. Its added to the equation of a politician. I don't ignore it, neither do I solely base my opinion on it. It was one of many of Trumps flaws and things I disagreed with. Much like his stances on issues like abortion (this threads topic).
Post by: macsak on June 21, 2021, 03:46:08 PM
If you vote for a president based on personality, I strongly suggest you never vote in the general election ever again.
That likely applies to state and local elections, too, since it's difficult to see you changing that criteria based on the level of office.
i'm guessing he votes for the candidates that are likely to support lots of state jobs...
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 21, 2021, 04:20:46 PM
Applies to results too. Biden so far has produced more results that I like than Trump. Adjusting to amount of time in office.Name what results that u like?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 21, 2021, 04:22:42 PM
i'm guessing he votes for the candidates that are likely to support lots of state jobs...Or killing thousands of jobs then telling said jobless to learn something else is not mean.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on June 21, 2021, 04:49:32 PM
Name what results that u like?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Abortion related policies. Vaccine policies. Global political policies. Eco/gas policies. The world has a more favorable opinion of us. Said FU to china recently in the g2 summit. Isn't Putin's friend. I think he handled the covid crisis pretty decent. He's pro choice and pro freedom of rights.
Mostly the main things I disagree is just gun and immigration policies so far. Oh and the BLM and race relations. Though might be forgetting some.
Trump was anti abortion, and had unfavorable environmental policies. He also was hated on the world stage with an unfavorable opinion. He fucked up on China and Russia. He did good on vaccine and immigration. At the same time other than the vaccine he mostly handled Covid unfavorably (except the very beginning where he rightfully banned flights). He was neutral on gun policies.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 21, 2021, 05:58:49 PM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 21, 2021, 06:12:54 PM
Hahahahahaha
Results? What's that?
Symbolism over substance.
Post by: ren on June 21, 2021, 06:36:38 PM
Post by: omnigun on June 21, 2021, 06:42:37 PM
Results? What's that?
Symbolism over substance.
Sounds like Trump :shaka:
"Make America great again", great slogan. No results.
Post by: ren on June 21, 2021, 07:15:00 PM
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 22, 2021, 06:06:49 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210622/e9990996ba3d4f004802ac42ce12fcf1.jpg)Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: groveler on June 22, 2021, 06:53:40 AM
AMEN! MF.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
You want to butcher your mistakes, YOU pay for it! not me.
I say that as a stepfather, that raised, and loves a "Mistake".
Post by: omnigun on June 22, 2021, 06:56:01 AM
Post by: ren on June 22, 2021, 08:31:32 AM
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/zuARuhsmb4s_tqynjxhQXw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0OC45NDczNjg0MjEwNTI2/https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/march-for-life-rt-aa-200124_hpEmbed_22x15_608.jpg)
Post by: ren on June 22, 2021, 08:32:28 AM
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
a liar...glad we don't have anyone like this on this forum...
Post by: omnigun on June 22, 2021, 09:38:27 AM
a liar...glad we don't have anyone like this on this forum...
Trumps the biggest liar of them all. Remember don't be hypocritical. Stand by your statement.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 22, 2021, 09:41:31 AM
Trumps the biggest liar of them all. Remember don't be hypocritical. Stand by your statement.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914
Doesn't understand the difference between a lie and changing ones opinion.
Post by: omnigun on June 22, 2021, 09:46:54 AM
Doesn't understand the difference between a lie and changing ones opinion.
Apparently to ren, one can't. Read his post, read it again slowly, then read it one last time. :shaka:
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 22, 2021, 10:05:26 AM
Apparently to ren, one can't. Read his post, read it again slowly, then read it one last time. :shaka:
#doesntknowhowtousereaditagainslowlyphrase
#doesntknowhowtousefocus
#doesntecon101
#etc...
Post by: ren on June 22, 2021, 10:44:27 AM
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 25, 2021, 03:00:20 PM
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/strong-majority-americans-believe-abortion-should-be-restricted-after-three-months
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 25, 2021, 03:12:10 PM
Strong majority of Americans believe abortion should be restricted after three months of pregnancy
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/strong-majority-americans-believe-abortion-should-be-restricted-after-three-months
Not a new revelation.
How Democrats purged ‘safe, legal, rare’ from the party
The party’s absolutist stance on abortion is out of step with voters’ views.
November 15, 2019
Quote
That abortions should be “safe, legal and rare” was, until fairly recently, a common
Democratic talking point. Coined by President Bill Clinton, the phrase signaled his
desire to protect the supposed constitutional right to abortion while acknowledging
the views of people with moral qualms about the practice and perhaps even winning
a few of them over to his side. It helped cement Clinton’s reputation as a moderate.
Today, Democrats use the phrase at their peril. The party’s base appears unwilling
to tolerate a slogan that suggests abortion ought to be “rare,” hearing in it too much
of a concession to abortion opponents. As a result, most Democratic candidates have
erased from their rhetoric any hint that abortion might be a subject on which reasonable
people can disagree, and they’ve altered their policy proposals to match — endorsing
the repeal of all restrictions on paying for abortions with federal money, for example.
These moves might excite the party’s progressive base, but they put candidates
out of step with the average American and even with many of their own voters.
Quote
Even so, it makes little sense for Democrats to move so far left on this issue that they
leave behind general-election Democratic voters — never mind independents and wavering
Republicans. Nearly 30 percent of Democrats describe themselves as pro-life, according to
a recent Gallup poll. And while 77 percent “generally” support abortion rights in the first
trimester, Gallup finds, the number drops to 46 percent by the second semester and to a
paltry 18 percent by the third. (And Democratic women are actually more opposed to second-
and third-trimester abortions than Democratic men, these polls say.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-democrats-purged-safe-legal-rare-from-the-party/2019/11/15/369af73c-01a4-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html
Support for abortion by trimester based on DEMOCRAT respondent's answers:
1st: 77%
2nd: 46%
3rd: 18%
The numbers show how bipartisan the pro-life stance is. It's not just a Republican position.
Post by: pewpewgoesthegun on June 25, 2021, 03:42:58 PM
Strong majority of Americans believe abortion should be restricted after three months of pregnancy
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/strong-majority-americans-believe-abortion-should-be-restricted-after-three-months
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I'm curious, would pro-lifers be ok with this compromise?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 25, 2021, 03:57:42 PM
I'm curious, would pro-lifers be ok with this compromise?
According to that poll:
Quote
A total of 56% of respondents expressed belief that abortion should be mostly
or completely illegal in all cases, while 43% expressed support for partially or
completely banning it.
The answer to your question would be, it depends on who you ask.
Most pro-life advocates are okay with abortion in certain situations even beyond 3 months, such as when carrying to full term or birth puts the mother's life at risk.
Also, rape and incest are justifications most pro-lifers cite as reasonable for abortion if done soon enough, such as 1st trimester. One of the main reasons rape victims are offered an "abortion pill" is so they are unlikely to have to make that choice and suffer the procedure.
Given what some states have been offering as new laws banning abortion after a heartbeat is present, I'd say the majority of pro-life advocates are okay with 1st trimester as a reasonable compromise. At least then the argument that "it's just a clump of cells" is more supported than it would be in the 9th month.
Until science and the laws agree on a definition for when human life begins, this issue will never be settled. Until we get that definitive answer, there are going to be those that take advantage and demand abortions without restrictions, and those who demand we err on the side of human rights and ban unnecessary abortions.
Post by: macsak on June 25, 2021, 03:58:11 PM
Strong majority of Americans believe abortion should be restricted after three months of pregnancy
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/strong-majority-americans-believe-abortion-should-be-restricted-after-three-months
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
not proven in a court of law...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 25, 2021, 04:00:25 PM
not proven in a court of law...
#Consensus>Proof
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 25, 2021, 04:04:20 PM
not proven in a court of law...Fake news!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on June 25, 2021, 04:06:00 PM
Fake news!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
need to post "studies and graphs"...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 25, 2021, 04:07:55 PM
Sad.
:wacko: :crazy: :'( >:( :(
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 25, 2021, 05:05:53 PM
need to post "studies and graphs"...And the many articles!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 25, 2021, 05:09:22 PM
Omni pollutes these threads even when he's not posting.We're renting rooms to him in our head! Oh no!!!
Sad.
:wacko: :crazy: :'( >:( :(
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on June 25, 2021, 05:10:36 PM
We're renting rooms to him in our head! Oh no!!!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
heads
Post by: ren on June 25, 2021, 05:34:00 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 25, 2021, 05:45:20 PM
abortion is racist. More minorities seek out abortions than white people
The founder of Planned Parenthood made it the organization's mission to engage in eugenics by reducing the number of Black & Brown children in the country. That's why the centers were opened in urban areas where most residents were minorities.
The Left finally admitted to her already well-known reputation as a racist after decades of Conservatives pointing out the fact that the group was created as a means to an immoral end. They finally removed Margaret Sanger's name from the PP centers and removed her statues as a result of this "really old news".
Apparently it's okay to continue her work as long as you remove her as the figurehead. :wacko: This is like continuing to have forced labor and extermination camps for Jews after removing Hitler's legacy from the Nazi Party. Same vehicle, new paint.
Remove statues of Margaret Sanger, Planned
Parenthood founder tied to eugenics and racism
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/23/racism-eugenics-margaret-sanger-deserves-no-honors-column/5480192002/
Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-eugenics.html
Planned Parenthood’s canceling of its founder is
about saving face, not ‘reckoning’ with her legacy
https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-cancel-sanger-save-face/
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 26, 2021, 08:03:36 AM
headsWhat exactly is meant by heads?
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on June 26, 2021, 10:20:41 AM
What exactly is meant by heads?
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
it's a stupid inside joke...
Post by: ren on June 26, 2021, 10:34:09 AM
What exactly is meant by heads?
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Its the term snooty, SJWs, liberal, scream-at-sky reloaders use for bullets.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 26, 2021, 10:45:54 AM
it's a stupid inside joke...
And, of course, everyone on the forum MUST be in on the joke, or he wouldn't use it so often.
:crazy:
Post by: groveler on June 26, 2021, 12:04:50 PM
Its the term snooty, SJWs, liberal, scream-at-sky reloaders use for bullets.I here I thought it was " Heads we win, tails, you Lose".
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 26, 2021, 12:54:56 PM
I here I thought it was " Heads we win, tails, you Lose".
Nope. That would actually be based on something at least marginally coherent.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 26, 2021, 02:22:28 PM
And, of course, everyone on the forum MUST be in on the joke, or he wouldn't use it so often.Sorry late comer to the forum. Couldn't find it in the search engine
:crazy:
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: oldfart on June 26, 2021, 02:59:09 PM
When I first joined this group, Ren spanked me for using the term head instead of bullet.
Prior to that I was using the term head (bullet) since 1962. So I had to unlearn decades of habit.
Personally, I'm not sure why we toss it around here.
The best explanation I can think of would be that it's like a fart.
You deploy it when you have nothing useful to contribute and need to interject some humor into the conversation.
Macsak started it, I'm pretty sure.
Post by: ren on June 26, 2021, 03:20:34 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 26, 2021, 03:23:41 PM
In the world of ammo, the head is the butt side.
When I first joined this group, Ren spanked me for using the term head instead of bullet.
Prior to that I was using the term head (bullet) since 1962. So I had to unlearn decades of habit.
Personally, I'm not sure why we toss it around here.
The best explanation I can think of would be that it's like a fart.
You deploy it when you have nothing useful to contribute and need to interject some humor into the conversation.
Macsak started it, I'm pretty sure.
(https://i.imgur.com/1aDpDz8.png)
Post by: oldfart on June 26, 2021, 03:39:47 PM
since we are in abortion thread...if you made a mistake on a batch of ammo you reloaded do you throw away the whole batch or disassemble/abort (cue Johhny5) each one?=============
I put them in a bucket and deal with them later.
....Like how they do with real dead babies... >:(
Post by: ren on June 27, 2021, 10:40:00 AM
Post by: ren on June 27, 2021, 10:42:09 AM
=============
I put them in a bucket and deal with them later.
....Like how they do with real dead babies... >:(
#AllBulletsMatter
but if you disassemble them they won't exist as ammunition but as components. So when is the exact moment components become ammunition? When the BULLET gets seated into the case? Or when the cartridge is chambered and the primer is ignited?
Post by: oldfart on June 27, 2021, 11:06:48 AM
#AllBulletsMatter....
but if you disassemble them they won't exist as ammunition but as components. So when is the exact moment components become ammunition? When the BULLET gets seated into the case? Or when the cartridge is chambered and the primer is ignited?
I am of the opinion that the moment that the HEAD is put on. It achieves sentience, aka ammunition.
You can't be sentient without a HEAD.
:D
Post by: ren on June 27, 2021, 11:12:20 AM
....
I am of the opinion that the moment that the HEAD is put on. It achieves sentience, aka ammunition.
You can't be sentient without a HEAD.
:D
great insight. Would you also say that is the assembled amalgamation of components are inserted into a clip still be sentience? Without the clip being inserted into a firearm? Say a Glock?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 27, 2021, 11:25:13 AM
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 27, 2021, 02:13:08 PM
https://rumble.com/vj24rx-the-best-takedown-of-the-lefts-abortion-argument.html
Headed back in the right direction now!
Post by: oldfart on June 27, 2021, 04:50:33 PM
The Best Takedown of the Left's Abortion Argument
https://rumble.com/vj24rx-the-best-takedown-of-the-lefts-abortion-argument.html
Headed back in the right direction now!
[/quote
...
Hey this is a gun forum so guns are ok anytime.
But I can also talk about abortions if necessary.
Post by: omnigun on June 27, 2021, 06:25:41 PM
Until a round is chambered and fired, you can never know for certain whether that particular round is viable.
In the process of reloading till all the steps are taken its not a bullet.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 27, 2021, 06:30:46 PM
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 27, 2021, 06:42:30 PM
In the process of reloading till all the steps are taken its not a bullet.
Nobody reloads bullets.
A fully reloaded pistol or rifle round is called a "cartridge".
A "bullet" is the projectile component of the round.
Maybe you should take a class or learn to use Google?
(https://i.imgur.com/5sYqKX6.jpg)
Post by: ren on June 27, 2021, 06:42:53 PM
In the process of reloading till all the steps are taken its not a bullet.
heads
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 27, 2021, 06:44:23 PM
heads
That makes even less sense than usual given the context.
Post by: ren on June 27, 2021, 06:46:29 PM
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 27, 2021, 06:51:55 PM
headsTails
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on June 27, 2021, 07:34:13 PM
In the process of reloading till all the steps are taken its not a bullet.
let's see how he/she/it avoids admitting wrongness...
Post by: omnigun on June 27, 2021, 07:47:19 PM
Same with fetuses until it's fully formed it's not a sentient human.
Post by: ren on June 27, 2021, 08:02:07 PM
Post by: drck1000 on June 27, 2021, 08:44:27 PM
let's see how he/she/it avoids admitting wrongness...All I have are "notional" bullets then? ???
Post by: macsak on June 27, 2021, 08:55:19 PM
All I have are "notional" bullets then? ???
shooting blanks...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 27, 2021, 09:54:56 PM
Ok I was wrong. I used the wrong term. Cartridge. Until all the parts are assembled it does not function and is not considered ammo.
Same with fetuses until it's fully formed it's not a sentient human.
How does someone who doesn't even know the names of the parts pretend to lecture on the functionality?
Oh, yeah. Feelings and beliefs > facts.
So, if assembly of parts is all that's required to offer the POSSIBILITY of functioning makes it ammunition, then having the basic physical parts to maintain life and POSSIBLY attain sentience is all a fetus needs to be counted as human.
Post by: omnigun on June 27, 2021, 10:29:10 PM
How does someone who doesn't even know the names of the parts pretend to lecture on the functionality?
Oh, yeah. Feelings and beliefs > facts.
So, if assembly of parts is all that's required to offer the POSSIBILITY of functioning makes it ammunition, then having the basic physical parts to maintain life and POSSIBLY attain sentience is all a fetus needs to be counted as human.
No parts kits are not full "objects". A pile of parts does not make a magazine. I also hope you are not saying 80%'s are full firearms because they are capable of turning into one.
Its not about possibilities its about what it is in the moment.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 27, 2021, 10:37:51 PM
No parts kits are not full "objects". A pile of parts does not make a magazine. I also hope you are not saying 80%'s are full firearms because they are capable of turning into one.
Its not about possibilities its about what it is in the moment.
Way to move the goal posts. Show me where I said "a pile" of anything -- other than your excrement.
A fetus is not a "pile of parts," but rather a developing child -- no different than a child developing from an infant to a toddler, of from an adolescent to an adult. It's ll nothing more than various stages of development.
Why do you keep trying to say I'm saying things I never said? Is it because you can't make an intelligent argument regarding what I actually did say?
Post by: omnigun on June 28, 2021, 06:18:55 AM
Way to move the goal posts. Show me where I said "a pile" of anything -- other than your excrement.
A fetus is not a "pile of parts," but rather a developing child -- no different than a child developing from an infant to a toddler, of from an adolescent to an adult. It's ll nothing more than various stages of development.
Why do you keep trying to say I'm saying things I never said? Is it because you can't make an intelligent argument regarding what I actually did say?
Ok assembly of parts. How's that, if semantics are important to you. A 80% is a developing firearm to you then. It's just in a early stage. So you must be against that too eh. Same concept brah. Not sure how else to explain it to you.
To me a fetus is no more than a 80% frame. Sure it might eventually turn into something. But as it is. It's nothing special.
Post by: aletheuo137 on June 28, 2021, 01:07:53 PM
All I have are "notional" bullets then? ???Bullet points!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on July 13, 2021, 05:37:20 AM
https://www.christianpost.com/news/christ-of-the-ozarks-statue-vandalized-by-activists-god-bless-abortions-banner.html
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: oldfart on July 13, 2021, 06:12:27 AM
'God Bless Abortions': Christ of the Ozarks statue vandalized by activists...
https://www.christianpost.com/news/christ-of-the-ozarks-statue-vandalized-by-activists-god-bless-abortions-banner.html
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Wow, those people that vandalized the statue are like little kids crying for attention.
No class.
Reminds me of the vandals that just shot the Hawaiian petroglyphs with paintballs.
No class.
Bachi ga ataru
Post by: omnigun on July 13, 2021, 06:15:09 AM
Post by: aletheuo137 on July 15, 2021, 06:55:36 AM
https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20210528/brutal-budget
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on July 15, 2021, 08:29:29 AM
Biden's Brutal Budget for the Unborn
https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20210528/brutal-budget
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Boo Hoo
I don't want my tax dollars being used to prop up oil and gas subsidies, but do I get a say in it? No. That's life. Ond of many things I wouldn't want my tax dollars spent on but have no "choice".
Post by: macsak on July 15, 2021, 09:24:05 AM
Boo Hoo
I don't want my tax dollars being used to prop up oil and gas subsidies, but do I get a say in it? No. That's life. Ond of many things I wouldn't want my tax dollars spent on but have no "choice".
but you have a say in forcing people to stop smoking and drinking and driving?
Post by: omnigun on July 15, 2021, 09:29:07 AM
but you have a say in forcing people to stop smoking and drinking and driving?
Yup that's how laws work. We elected politicians who implemented both those tax rules and health rules. Don't like it, find new politicians and create laws you like. That's how you have a say.
Post by: macsak on July 15, 2021, 09:36:57 AM
Yup that's how laws work. We elected politicians who implemented both those tax rules and health rules. Don't like it, find new politicians and create laws you like. That's how you have a say.
couldn't you do the same thing with oil and gas subsidies?
goalposts------>knocked over
Post by: omnigun on July 15, 2021, 09:45:35 AM
couldn't you do the same thing with oil and gas subsidies?
goalposts------>knocked over
Yup but it isn't that way so I can't really do anything but support those who are against it.
Those who support it can say boo hoo. Lol
Post by: aletheuo137 on July 23, 2021, 05:54:56 AM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/new-mississippi-attorney-general-asks-supreme-court-overturn-roe-v-wade/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 23, 2021, 02:37:07 PM
NEW: Mississippi Attorney General Asks Supreme Court to Overturn Roe V. Wade
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/new-mississippi-attorney-general-asks-supreme-court-overturn-roe-v-wade/
A bad decision is a bad decision, regardless of the perceived positive results.
The basis for the decision was totally bogus, since abortion was deemed a right based on privacy (my body, my choice), but so many other laws stand unchallenged that deprive individuals of that "right." inconsistency is a good indicator that a law or judicial decision was incorrectly decided.
It was a purely political decision that had nothing to do with science. in fact, the science has surpassed that which was available in the 1970s regarding fetal development.
As 2A supporters, we are reminded constantly the the Constitution is not perfect, and the 2nd Amendment can be changed if enough people agree it's no longer applicable as written.
The same is true of the Roe v. Wade decision.
I hope the decision is reversed, and a more informed discussion occurs among the states, since the ball will once again be in their court.
Post by: aletheuo137 on July 29, 2021, 12:19:14 PM
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/congress-republicans-push-supreme-court-overturn-historic-ruling
The 128 members – 44 senators and 184 House members representing 40 states – made their request to the high court with an amicus brief, arguing Congress and the country are ready to make an updated decision regarding abortion, particularly the cutoff for when they can be performed on the pregnant mother.
“Congress and the States have shown that they are ready and able to address the issue in ways that reflect Americans’ varying viewpoints and are grounded in the science of fetal development and maternal health,” the brief said.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 12:44:49 PM
Congress Republicans push Supreme Court to overturn historic ruling
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/congress-republicans-push-supreme-court-overturn-historic-ruling
The 128 members – 44 senators and 184 House members representing 40 states – made their request to the high court with an amicus brief, arguing Congress and the country are ready to make an updated decision regarding abortion, particularly the cutoff for when they can be performed on the pregnant mother.
“Congress and the States have shown that they are ready and able to address the issue in ways that reflect Americans’ varying viewpoints and are grounded in the science of fetal development and maternal health,” the brief said.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I hope they all fail.
Worst case scenario, I live in Hawaii. The liberal government while isn't perfect excels in the protection of abortion rights. The republicans hopefully will learn over time what polices like that will do to their states. Have fun with higher crime and taxes.
Post by: macsak on July 29, 2021, 01:00:14 PM
I hope they all fail.
Worst case scenario, I live in Hawaii. The liberal government while isn't perfect excels in the protection of abortion rights. The republicans hopefully will learn over time what polices like that will do to their states. Have fun with higher crime and taxes.
you not justifying that 3.7 by saying that republican states have higher taxes and crime rates...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 29, 2021, 01:11:35 PM
There's no evidence the people opting to have the most abortions are the ones giving birth to "criminals".
Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood as a Eugenics solution -- to diminish the minority (Black) population. If you agree she had the right idea, you are the worst kind of racist. O0
Imagine if the money poured into Planned Parenthood went into supporting urban neighborhoods -- schools, small business, gang crime prevention, ...
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 01:38:49 PM
You can't force people to have abortions.
There's no evidence the people opting to have the most abortions are the ones giving birth to "criminals".
Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood as a Eugenics solution -- to diminish the minority (Black) population. If you agree she had the right idea, you are the worst kind of racist. O0
Imagine if the money poured into Planned Parenthood went into supporting urban neighborhoods -- schools, small business, gang crime prevention, ...
Show me where I said to force people to have abortions.
Poor people having babies more times than not will only get poorer. Unless you support welfare.
People forced to have birth defected kids will occur more burdons on society from education to health. Aka even more welfare.
Nothing to do with race. Looks like you just really like commie welfare states.
You make it seem like planned parenthood is a big expense and all they do is abortions. Both are false accusations. I went to planned parenthood and I didn't get an abortion. STD checks and health checks only benefit society unless you like STDs spreading around, then again that would make your views on covid make more sense....Probably would fear monger STI vaccines too.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 29, 2021, 01:50:05 PM
Show me where I said to force people to have abortions.
Poor people having babies more times than not will only get poorer. Unless you support welfare.
People forced to have birth defected kids will occur more burdons on society from education to health. Aka even more welfare.
Nothing to do with race. Looks like you just really like commie welfare states.
You make it seem like planned parenthood is a big expense and all they do is abortions. Both are false accusations. I went to planned parenthood and I didn't get an abortion. STD checks and health checks only benefit society unless you like STDs spreading around, then again that would make your views on covid make more sense....Probably would fear monger STI vaccines too.
Show me where I quoted or responded to you at all.
#DumbassTrolls
#ThoseIgnorantPeople
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 01:51:33 PM
Show me where I quoted or responded to you at all.
#DumbassTrolls
Add "doesn't know how to use "show me"" to the list.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 01:58:09 PM
Show me where I said to force people to have abortions.
Poor people having babies more times than not will only get poorer. Unless you support welfare.
People forced to have birth defected kids will occur more burdons on society from education to health. Aka even more welfare.
Nothing to do with race. Looks like you just really like commie welfare states.
You make it seem like planned parenthood is a big expense and all they do is abortions. Both are false accusations. I went to planned parenthood and I didn't get an abortion. STD checks and health checks only benefit society unless you like STDs spreading around, then again that would make your views on covid make more sense....Probably would fear monger STI vaccines too.
Nothing in this post makes sense. Flapp addressed the show me portion.
Only to you it seems that Flapp made it seem like all PP does is abortions. So try again. Assumption mistake again. PP has shown on their tax returns how many millions they get by the feds. Then to donate millions to majority DNC politicians. If they have millions to give away, why are the feds funding them so much?
People with critical thinking abilities know why PP offers other services. Guess you didn't see the Project Veritas under cover video talking to PP and what they do with the aborted parts.
*edit
Guess $100-$500 million isn't a big expense. I use the range because it depends on what kid of federal funding is considered.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 01:59:06 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 29, 2021, 02:06:59 PM
Nothing in this post makes sense. Flapp addressed the show me portion.
That's because he's just pasting his abortion talking points. Doesn't matter if it addresses my comments.
He needs to stop engaging me at all.
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 02:24:24 PM
Nothing in this post makes sense. Flapp addressed the show me portion.
Only to you it seems that Flapp made it seem like all PP does is abortions. So try again. Assumption mistake again. PP has shown on their tax returns how many millions they get by the feds. Then to donate millions to majority DNC politicians. If they have millions to give away, why are the feds funding them so much?
People with critical thinking abilities know why PP offers other services. Guess you didn't see the Project Veritas under cover video talking to PP and what they do with the aborted parts.
*edit
Guess $100-$500 million isn't a big expense. I use the range because it depends on what kid of federal funding is considered.
Alright he didn't directly quote me, he just retorted on many things I said :crazy:
Lets make alot of assumptions cause I know you hate them. Lets assume project scamitas was indeed correct. Who cares if they sell the parts, if anything that will make the "big expense" smaller. Capitalism go. Now lets assume its 500mil the high range of your figures. Thats a tiny amount compared to many other programs and would not be enough to address any of flapps comments on alternative funding areas.
Then we get to the point you ignored the obvious right areas where I pointed out less abortions = more welfare.
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 02:26:20 PM
you not justifying that 3.7 by saying that republican states have higher taxes and crime rates...
I said The republicans hopefully will learn over time what polices like that will do to their states.. Guess what that means? In the future...Which implies its not the case now...showing that doctorate skills.
Right now they are enjoying the fruits of labor from the liberals. Then again there's also a reason many republican areas are not leading in GDP.
Post by: macsak on July 29, 2021, 02:36:29 PM
I said The republicans hopefully will learn over time what polices like that will do to their states.. Guess what that means? In the future...Which implies its not the case now...showing that doctorate skills.
Right now they are enjoying the fruits of labor from the liberals. Then again there's also a reason many republican areas are not leading in GDP.
please prove that the policies "will" lead to higher taxes and crime rates...
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 03:07:09 PM
Alright he didn't directly quote me, he just retorted on many things I said :crazy:So now u state that u know i hate assumptions?
Lets make alot of assumptions cause I know you hate them. Lets assume project scamitas was indeed correct. Who cares if they sell the parts, if anything that will make the "big expense" smaller. Capitalism go. Now lets assume its 500mil the high range of your figures. Thats a tiny amount compared to many other programs and would not be enough to address any of flapps comments on alternative funding areas.
Then we get to the point you ignored the obvious right areas where I pointed out less abortions = more welfare.
Its the one who makes them and then is wrong that looks like a moron. Not the one who is pointing out an assumption was made.
Anyone can assume anything. So your story...goalpost assumed to be moved.
So ignoring of something u post means that u are right? Maybe u post so much wrong stuff that some of it will be missed or the need to address it all wasnt needed.
Nice assumption again. Did u watch the vid i posted?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 04:28:55 PM
please prove that the policies "will" lead to higher taxes and crime rates...
Don't have time to give you a research paper on how poor people having more kids and getting poorer will create more crime. Nor do I have time to get you papers on how the unwanted or genetic or medically insufficient births will effect the medical and welfare budget.
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 04:29:51 PM
So now u state that u know i hate assumptions?
Its the one who makes them and then is wrong that looks like a moron. Not the one who is pointing out an assumption was made.
Anyone can assume anything. So your story...goalpost assumed to be moved.
So ignoring of something u post means that u are right? Maybe u post so much wrong stuff that some of it will be missed or the need to address it all wasnt needed.
Nice assumption again. Did u watch the vid i posted?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Your vid link does not show on this forum. Age restricted.
Post by: aletheuo137 on July 29, 2021, 04:30:20 PM
Can I have, not really?
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 29, 2021, 04:32:15 PM
Your vid link does not show on this forum. Age restricted.
IT SME -- but doesn't know how to watch a video on the YouTube app or browser.
#ThoseIgnorantPeople
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 04:35:22 PM
IT SME -- but doesn't know how to watch a video on the YouTube app or browser.
#ThoseIgnorantPeople
Don't have a youtube account. Guessing by the title its some meme.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 29, 2021, 04:42:17 PM
Don't have a youtube account. Guessing by the title its some meme.
Doesn't have a YT account -- cries because he can't open an "Age Restricted" video.
Must be Trump's fault!
#ThoseIgnorantPeople
#NotSarcasm
Post by: aieahound on July 29, 2021, 04:47:13 PM
Doesn't have a YT account -- cries because he can't open an "Age Restricted" video.
Must be Trump's fault!
#ThoseIgnorantPeople
#NotSarcasm
Doesn’t having a YouTube account violate like half the shit half the members here believe in ?
Dammit. Assumption based on prior posts that are anti-government and Big Tech.
I don’t have a YouTube account or Facebook or Instagram or Twitter.
I use Pictograph.
Doesn’t Planned Parenthood get most of their Federal funding through Medicaid claims ?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/health/planned-parenthood-title-x.html
The fact they have a political Super - PAC is fawked.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/768399183/with-abortion-rights-on-the-line-planned-parenthood-announces-2020-push
But then so is the NRA.
Guess everyone gotta grease the wheel to protect their Rights.
#TrollsInControl
#WhyFourUserNames
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 04:59:00 PM
Your vid link does not show on this forum. Age restricted.Are u under 18?
Or did u see under siege 2?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 05:02:40 PM
Doesn’t having a YouTube account violate like half the shit half the members here believe in ?Thats why i stated the range and why, due to medicare as 1 example. Omni choose to use the highest # for his example. I was learning toward the low end, which is still a lot of $. But hey, maybe to private school kids, $100 million is chump change.
Dammit. Assumption based on prior posts that are anti-government and Big Tech.
I don’t have a YouTube account or Facebook or Instagram or Twitter.
I use Pictograph.
Doesn’t Planned Parenthood get most of their Federal funding through Medicaid claims ?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/health/planned-parenthood-title-x.html
The fact they have a political Super - PAC is fawked.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/768399183/with-abortion-rights-on-the-line-planned-parenthood-announces-2020-push
But then so is the NRA.
Guess everyone gotta grease the wheel to protect their Rights.
#TrollsInControl
#WhyFourUserNames
YT holds a monopoly and so does other social media. Their popularity allows the monopoly. Are there less popular venues available, of course. But the info i need arent readily available.
I use YT a lot for instructions on firearm cleaning, reviews, training, etc...IG for info, like LT. Gov green uses his to show HI covid numbers. Green doesnt have an emailer and the way he breaks down the info makes it easier to understand than just using the Hawaiicovid19 website.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: aieahound on July 29, 2021, 05:18:59 PM
I use YT a lot for instructions on firearm cleaning, reviews, training, etc...IG for info, like LT. Gov green uses his to show HI covid numbers. Green doesnt have an emailer and the way he breaks down the info makes it easier to understand than just using the Hawaiicovid19 website.
I’m not starting anything with you CMO and hope to meet at the next shoot together. ( how’s that name OF ? Shoot together. Shoot to BBQ. Shoot to shoot the shit. Set it up)
But are they age restricted ?
I can’t view dick that’s age restricted. (Old saying “I can’t see dick”, fog, smoke snow rain is so thick you can’t even see your dick, but meant to be funny because you shouldn’t be viewing literal dick that’s age restricted. FlappJack? lucky he knows how to clear his browser)
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 05:20:58 PM
Are u under 18?
Or did u see under siege 2?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Youtube only requires an account to view 18+ so 99% of the video I want to watch I have no issues. I have not seen that movie.
Post by: aieahound on July 29, 2021, 05:21:59 PM
#Focus
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 05:40:09 PM
I’m not starting anything with you CMO and hope to meet at the next shoot together. ( how’s that name OF ? Shoot together. Shoot to BBQ. Shoot to shoot the shit. Set it up)No worries. My age we say "i cant see shit". Wonder what todays people say?
But are they age restricted ?
I can’t view dick that’s age restricted. (Old saying “I can’t see dick” but meant to be funny because you shouldn’t be viewing literal dick that’s age restricted. FlappJack? lucky he knows how to clear his browser)
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on July 29, 2021, 05:57:30 PM
Don't have time to give you a research paper on how poor people having more kids and getting poorer will create more crime. Nor do I have time to get you papers on how the unwanted or genetic or medically insufficient births will effect the medical and welfare budget.
mahalo for confirming that those were just your feels...
Post by: ren on July 29, 2021, 06:16:39 PM
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 07:04:09 PM
There is that elitist, liberal mindset that "poor people" will remain poor.
Nope, not even close. Poor people should get out of poverty but another responsibility and mouth to feed is not the path out of poverty.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 07:46:01 PM
Nope, not even close. Poor people should get out of poverty but another responsibility and mouth to feed is not the path out of poverty.Nope, not even close. Poor people are poor .
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 29, 2021, 08:32:49 PM
Nope, not even close. Poor people are poor .
Children come with tax deductions, increased welfare/rent/medical coverage, and tax credits that make it more than affordable for the poor to raise kids. Add to that all the charities, free lunch programs, and so on, and the kid is really not that much of a burden.
I speak from experience. If the parent is disciplined, manages the programs they are eligible for, and isn't paying for luxury items and the latest iPhone, kids are not going to drag an already poor parent into becoming destitute.
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 09:39:30 PM
Children come with tax deductions, increased welfare/rent/medical coverage, and tax credits that make it more than affordable for the poor to raise kids. Add to that all the charities, free lunch programs, and so on, and the kid is really not that much of a burden.
I speak from experience. If the parent is disciplined, manages the programs they are eligible for, and isn't paying for luxury items and the latest iPhone, kids are not going to drag an already poor parent into becoming destitute.
So you do support more welfare then. Nice to know.
My personal opinion, if you can't afford kids. Don't have them. Don't rely on the government.
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 03, 2021, 06:42:11 AM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-abolishing-hyde-amendment
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 03, 2021, 12:25:40 PM
So you do support more welfare then. Nice to know.
My personal opinion, if you can't afford kids. Don't have them. Don't rely on the government.
What I support and what the current state of welfare in the US happens to be are not necessarily the same.
If you are so poor you can't afford a child, there are options other then abortion.
Stop pretending abortion is a solution, unless (like Hitler) you believe killing the unwanted solves anything.
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 10, 2021, 12:48:38 PM
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/08/u-pittsburgh-harvesting-organs-of-full-term-aborted-babies-with-possibly-beating-hearts-as-old-as-42-weeks-federal-docs-reveal/
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has provided at least $2.7 million to fund a University of Pittsburgh effort to collect organs from full-term aborted babies as old as 42 weeks that may have been alive, HHS documents released by Judicial Watch last week revealed.
According to the documents, the harvested organs of aborted babies were part of a university project called the GenitoUrinary Development Molecular Anatomy Project, or GUDMAP. The university requested additional funding for the project, but it is unclear how much it received.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on August 10, 2021, 01:51:05 PM
U. Pittsburgh harvesting organs of full-term aborted babies with possibly beating hearts as old as 42 weeks, federal docs reveal
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/08/u-pittsburgh-harvesting-organs-of-full-term-aborted-babies-with-possibly-beating-hearts-as-old-as-42-weeks-federal-docs-reveal/
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has provided at least $2.7 million to fund a University of Pittsburgh effort to collect organs from full-term aborted babies as old as 42 weeks that may have been alive, HHS documents released by Judicial Watch last week revealed.
According to the documents, the harvested organs of aborted babies were part of a university project called the GenitoUrinary Development Molecular Anatomy Project, or GUDMAP. The university requested additional funding for the project, but it is unclear how much it received.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
We harvest the organs of adults, what makes the difference? Either or is good.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 10, 2021, 04:03:46 PM
We harvest the organs of adults, what makes the difference? Either or is good.
Nobody is increasing the supply of adult cadavers to sell.
Project Veritas has video evidence that Planned Parenthood does exactly that to sell aborted baby parts.
But, you missed the entire point.
Swooooooosh!!
#42Weeks>9Months
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 10, 2021, 04:28:30 PM
That was expected! He's gone the path of Cain. I'll keep praying for the boy.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on August 10, 2021, 04:29:21 PM
Nobody is increasing the supply of adult cadavers to sell.
Project Veritas has video evidence that Planned Parenthood does exactly that to sell aborted baby parts.
But, you missed the entire point.
Swooooooosh!!
#42Weeks>9Months
While I don't think Project Veritas is legitimate. Let's say they are. It still is #whocares. Same reason I would happily sell my blood or sperm and should be able to. If someone wants to monetize fetuses why not. I think people should be able to sell organs too. The studies benefit humanity and science.
#science
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 10, 2021, 04:33:45 PM
Nobody is increasing the supply of adult cadavers to sell.I already mentioned this specifically and he made fun of their name.
Project Veritas has video evidence that Planned Parenthood does exactly that to sell aborted baby parts.
But, you missed the entire point.
Swooooooosh!!
#42Weeks>9Months
Unless it fits his feelings, all other sources are wrong. Never mind PV has never had to print a dedaction and receives hundreds from other news sources who call their stories fake. They keep all on their wall in their office.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on August 10, 2021, 04:37:40 PM
"You done lost yo damn mind"
Post by: omnigun on August 10, 2021, 04:54:36 PM
What the fawk? Monetizing fetuses?
"You done lost yo damn mind"
My opinion still stands that's it's just cells. No different than selling eggs or sperm. And I do realize my position is different than others as I also believe that it's your body you can sell your organs or anything, even your life if you wanted to. As long as it doesn't effect others. I even support euthanasia.
Post by: drck1000 on August 10, 2021, 05:00:34 PM
Post by: omnigun on August 10, 2021, 05:17:37 PM
I already mentioned this specifically and he made fun of their name.
Unless it fits his feelings, all other sources are wrong. Never mind PV has never had to print a dedaction and receives hundreds from other news sources who call their stories fake. They keep all on their wall in their office.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
It has been shown that are incredibly misleading and heavily edit their videos.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 10, 2021, 05:39:41 PM
It has been shown that are incredibly misleading and heavily edit their videos.
They've never lost a lawsuit.
Court of law has proven they do not "heavily edit" their videos. They omit some segments for brevity, but they have never been proven to be misleading.
#FactsAreFunny
#WhoYouGonnaBelieve?
#ThePeopleCaughtInTheAct?
#OrYourLyingEyes?
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 10, 2021, 06:20:45 PM
It has been shown that are incredibly misleading and heavily edit their videos.Wrong
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 10, 2021, 06:22:05 PM
They've never lost a lawsuit.Courts only matter if it fits his feelings.
Court of law has proven they do not "heavily edit" their videos. They omit some segments for brevity, but they have never been proven to be misleading.
#FactsAreFunny
#WhoYouGonnaBelieve?
#ThePeopleCaughtInTheAct?
#OrYourLyingEyes?
In this case, proven in court multiple times, zero retractions, hundreds of other media retractions calling PV wrong.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on August 10, 2021, 07:08:43 PM
Courts only matter if it fits his feelings.
In this case, proven in court multiple times, zero retractions, hundreds of other media retractions calling PV wrong.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Courts haven't proved them right either....
Post by: omnigun on August 10, 2021, 07:13:01 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 10, 2021, 08:09:05 PM
Courts haven't proved them right either....They did. We covered this already.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 10, 2021, 08:10:39 PM
Courts haven't proved them right either....
#FAKENEWS
You're such a liar.
Quote
Even with the most formidable opponents, the Project Veritas record stands at 7-0.
In stark contrast, even veteran journalist Mike Wallace was sued multiple times at “60 Minutes” and
chose to settle more than 100 times. More recently, you may remember CNN settling a $250 million
lawsuit with Covington High School students.
What continues to make Project Veritas so unique is no matter the attack, which have been baseless
lies, we are setting new legal precedent and winning every lawsuit litigated.
https://www.projectveritas.com/project-veritas-legal-victories/
Post by: macsak on August 10, 2021, 08:11:39 PM
https://youtu.be/WzFGVEEB0Yw
maybe you should google (and read) "anecdotal evidence"...
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 10, 2021, 08:14:03 PM
#FAKENEWSDoesnt fit his feelings. So didnt happen. Proven in court, goal post about to be moved.
You're such a liar.
https://www.projectveritas.com/project-veritas-legal-victories/
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 10, 2021, 08:16:06 PM
https://youtu.be/WzFGVEEB0Yw
Wait. So your ONLY SOURCE providing evidence that Project Veritas lied and manipulated video
was the SUBJECT of a PV video exposing this guy's self-incriminating voter fraud statements?
LOL!!
(https://i.imgur.com/EYSwyMS.jpg)
Post by: omnigun on August 11, 2021, 06:27:30 AM
Wait. So your ONLY SOURCE providing evidence that Project Veritas lied and manipulated video
was the SUBJECT of a PV video exposing this guy's self-incriminating voter fraud statements?
LOL!!
(https://i.imgur.com/EYSwyMS.jpg)
That was the first one of many that showed up in searches.
Post by: omnigun on August 11, 2021, 06:28:46 AM
Doesnt fit his feelings. So didnt happen. Proven in court, goal post about to be moved.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Still waiting for proof that a story they wrote that is the "truth" ended up in a court victory on said truth. Like if they exposed some hideous crime, are those people exposed in jail?
Post by: omnigun on August 11, 2021, 06:38:36 AM
#FAKENEWS
You're such a liar.
https://www.projectveritas.com/project-veritas-legal-victories/
Courts have proved the first ammendment and several ruled against defamation. Nothing to do with how accurate their stories are.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 11, 2021, 07:22:50 AM
Still waiting for proof that a story they wrote that is the "truth" ended up in a court victory on said truth. Like if they exposed some hideous crime, are those people exposed in jail?
Goal post moved.
Still doesnt know how to fish.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 11, 2021, 07:35:05 AM
Make a claim about PV in the past and shown he was wrong.
Point comes up again later and above repeated
Shown again info and either doesnt understand it or too stubborn to admit mistake
Wont admit hes wrong, so tries to find loop hole and move goal post
History repeating
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on August 11, 2021, 07:40:02 AM
Omni-ism
Make a claim about PV in the past and shown he was wrong.
Point comes up again later and above repeated
Shown again info and either doesnt understand it or too stubborn to admit mistake
Wont admit hes wrong, so tries to find loop hole and move goal post
History repeating
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Incorrect. Look at my original post.
It has been shown that are incredibly misleading and heavily edit their videos.
I have shown evidence of this. The courts thing is a tangent. I just humored that tangent. Still haven't proved that relating to my original post.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 11, 2021, 07:53:21 AM
Incorrect. Look at my original post.Not my fault u dont understand.
I have shown evidence of this. The courts thing is a tangent. I just humored that tangent. Still haven't proved that relating to my original post.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on August 31, 2021, 09:06:22 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/31/politics/texas-six-week-abortion-ban-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
Just travel to another state to get an abortion. Just makes it slightly harder with no benefits. Just fucks over the poor.
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 11:52:10 AM
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 12:44:20 PM
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 12:48:12 PM
Drive around Oahu and there are tons of new out of state plates everywhere. They aren't military, it's crappy liberals fleeing the mess that is the mainland.
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 12:54:10 PM
It’s like there is no criminal penalty for violating it to be enforced by the State.
But any party can sue any person involved in the abortion after arguably 6 weeks. From advisors, to people providing transportation to the doctor to healthcare facility to the person who got the abortion.
It’s like the law gives everyone standing in a lawsuit against any aiders and abettors and the individual if they get an abortion after a fetal heart beat is detected.
Unless I read it wrong. Bizarre.
Passed The Supreme Court though. Barely.
Post by: groveler on September 02, 2021, 01:03:07 PM
Not really, TX is getting flooded with Blue State liberals moving to fresh lands with freedom after fleeing the beds they shat up in CA OR etc etc. Passing this law might convince them the F off back to where they came from, or at least stop more from coming.At least they can't screw up Hawaii government any worse than it already is.
Drive around Oahu and there are tons of new out of state plates everywhere. They aren't military, it's crappy liberals fleeing the mess that is the mainland.
:wacko:
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 02, 2021, 01:14:17 PM
Not really, TX is getting flooded with Blue State liberals moving to fresh lands with freedom after fleeing the beds they shat up in CA OR etc etc. Passing this law might convince them the F off back to where they came from, or at least stop more from coming.Luckily, HI is already jacked up. Vegas people have a saying. Dont california my nevada.
Drive around Oahu and there are tons of new out of state plates everywhere. They aren't military, it's crappy liberals fleeing the mess that is the mainland.
Most major cities in TX are blue. Its the red smaller areas that keep the state red. San antonio, houston, dallas, austin, all blue.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Brystont1 on September 02, 2021, 01:15:37 PM
Post by: drck1000 on September 02, 2021, 01:35:07 PM
Not really, TX is getting flooded with Blue State liberals moving to fresh lands with freedom after fleeing the beds they shat up in CA OR etc etc. Passing this law might convince them the F off back to where they came from, or at least stop more from coming.That's what a number of close friends (from Hawaii) as well as folks I work with have said. There are many areas that have become liberal hot bets. Areas like DFW are quickly turning super liberal. I've seen it in person, albeit 2-3 years ago.
Drive around Oahu and there are tons of new out of state plates everywhere. They aren't military, it's crappy liberals fleeing the mess that is the mainland.
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 01:44:53 PM
Even my daughter likes it.
The law is bizarre though.
It’s like there is no criminal penalty for violating it to be enforced by the State.
But any party can sue any person involved in the abortion after arguably 6 weeks. From advisors, to people providing transportation to the doctor to healthcare facility to the person who got the abortion.
It’s like the law gives everyone standing in a lawsuit against any aiders and abettors and the individual if they get an abortion after a fetal heart beat is detected.
Unless I read it wrong. Bizarre.
Passed The Supreme Court though. Barely.
But what about this bizarre law though ?
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 02:08:11 PM
If people thought the courts had frivolous lawsuits before now its going to turn into a clusterfu^k. One of the worst laws Texas passed in a while. Should have been overturned in the courts. But the supreme court punted it away. All this serves is making poor people have kids and rich people traveling out of state to get abortions. Some foreign embassy should open up a clinic as a big fu^k you to the morons.
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 02:21:31 PM
Still very interesting though. Give everybody standing in a civil case under a criminal code with no criminal penalty ?
That’ll be interesting.
Or I’m reading this whole thing wrong and someone please correct me.
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 02:26:40 PM
Not unconstitutional apparently. By 5-4 vote.
Still very interesting though. Give everybody standing in a civil case under a criminal code with no criminal penalty ?
That’ll be interesting.
Or I’m reading this whole thing wrong and someone please correct me.
From what I gather they denied a request to stop the law. They did not say the law is valid or legal.
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 02:36:41 PM
Usually a lawsuit aiming to block such a law as unconstitutional names state officials as defendants. Instead, the Texas law deputizes private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” a procedure. Plaintiffs who have no connection to the patient or the clinic may sue and recover legal fees, as well as $10,000 if they win.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/health/texas-abortion-law-facts.html
They surely said it wasn’t unconstitutional prima facie. Although there a major disagreement on that within the court.
It needs to go back to the lower courts and climb it’s way up the ladder.
The above is the wild premise though.
Post by: macsak on September 02, 2021, 02:39:46 PM
From what I gather they denied a request to stop the law. They did not say the law is valid or legal.
bruh
you have said previously that if the supreme court refuses to hear a case that means it is not proven in a court of law...
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 02:49:44 PM
“The Texas law bars state officials from actually enforcing it, a design intended to make it difficult to challenge in the courts.
Usually a lawsuit aiming to block such a law as unconstitutional names state officials as defendants. Instead, the Texas law deputizes private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or “aids and abets” a procedure. Plaintiffs who have no connection to the patient or the clinic may sue and recover legal fees, as well as $10,000 if they win.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/health/texas-abortion-law-facts.html
They surely said it wasn’t unconstitutional prima facie. Although there a major disagreement on that within the court.
It needs to go back to the lower courts and climb it’s way up the ladder.
The above is the wild premise though.
Ironic though isn't it, takes a page right out of the Dem playbook and makes you suffer via the courts for years and burn up all your savings on lawyers. Also solves the problem of people who want to martyr themselves by pushing the issue going to prison and have celebrities rally around them to fight the man. Now you just have to stand before a judge for 25 dates over a couple years til you go broke.
Dems want everything to be Lawfare, enjoy your own medicine.
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 03:12:17 PM
Or are the Repubs taking pages out the Dems playbook ?
Going down the same road ?
If this law fly’s it’s a wild law that could change a lot of things.
No criminal penalty, but illegal, and anyone, and everyone, can sue you….
I still hope I’m interpreting this wrong.
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 03:14:52 PM
But why would Dems wanna effectively ban abortion ?
Or are the Repubs taking pages out the Dems playbook ?
If this law fly’s it’s a wild law that could change a lot of things.
No criminal penalty, but illegal, and anyone, and everyone, can sue you ?
Dems like to push their liberal agenda with 'F*ck You Sue Me' TX answered with 'Enjoy Being Sued'.
They are trolling them hard.
Cancel Culture on Steroids.
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 03:25:22 PM
Lawyers are gonna love it.
Is this a game we really want to play ?
(Not with abortion but with laws in general)
But it backdoored abortion rights dramatically.
Think about it. A crime with no criminal penalty but anyone can sue you and everyone that touched you including the counselor you saw and the driver of the ride you caught.
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
This is a nice big middle finger to his administration, word was Joe flipped when he heard the SCOTUS said 'not our problem'. Crown jewel of Dem philosophy just got robbed from them.
TX AG has been giving other states the blue prints for legal fights for a while now. Watch other dominoes fall, might be the beginning of the 'National Divorce'.
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 03:49:41 PM
Think about it. A crime with no criminal penalty but anyone can sue you and everyone that touched you including the counselor you saw and the driver of the ride you caught.
Not all that different than the strike fear into the hearts psyop over COVID is it? 100% a whole buncha folks just noped out.
It will be interesting to see if this becomes a massive legal money sink that drains the bank accounts of liberal billionaires like Soros who aren't going to have as much money to interfere in elections if they are too busy trying to fight TX state laws they don't like.
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 03:52:30 PM
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 02, 2021, 03:59:19 PM
Two can play at that game, just sue the people suing or make lawsuits up against people. The burden of evidence will be hard to prove quickly either way.
You can't sue someone just because you were sued. Countersuits are for when you have a legitimate claim of injury or damages resulting from wrongful actions. Someone suing you based on the law isn't wrongful.
You should know this, given your parents' profession.
#NotALawyer
#NotSarcasm
#NotAGame
Post by: groveler on September 02, 2021, 04:00:31 PM
Biden and his government has been sh*tting hard on TX from day 1. Stopping The Wall, releasing Illegals into their state en masse, a lot of them COVID infected. Biden took a huge dump on their biggest source of income Energy.I don't know how to answer two comments at once, but Ahound asked if this is a road we want to go down? and you mention "National Divorce".
This is a nice big middle finger to his administration, word was Joe flipped when he heard the SCOTUS said 'not our problem'. Crown jewel of Dem philosophy just got robbed from them.
TX AG has been giving other states the blue prints for legal fights for a while now. Watch other dominoes fall, might be the beginning of the 'National Divorce'.
I think this is a road we have to go down. It won't be as clean as Chech(sp?) republic and Slovakia.
as our split is really urban vs rural cultures.
But such a split will occur.
I would be ecstatic to no longer be ruled by Honolulu, not deal with Jones act restrictions, and be able to buy non-EPA
Diesel Toyota trucks.
Freedom is scary, but better than the warming water that this frog finds himself in.
Aloha.
:thumbsup:
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 04:14:22 PM
You can't sue someone just because you were sued. Countersuits are for when you have a legitimate claim of injury or damages resulting from wrongful actions. Someone suing you based on the law isn't wrongful.
You should know this, given your parents' profession.
#NotALawyer
#NotSarcasm
#NotAGame
That's not what I ment, sue them for having or assisting with an abortion. They have to also go to court.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 02, 2021, 04:22:41 PM
That's not what I ment, sue them for having or assisting with an abortion. They have to also go to court.
Not what you said.
"Two can play at that game, just sue the people suing or make lawsuits up against people."
Is it now your explanation that you post words other than what you ment [sic]?
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 04:23:18 PM
(https://res.cloudinary.com/greenbuildingsupply/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto,c_pad,h_580,w_580/large/Pro-Lab-Lead-in-Paint-and-Dust-Test-Kit-3866-PR-LG.jpg)
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 04:34:24 PM
Not what you said.
"Two can play at that game, just sue the people suing or make lawsuits up against people."
Is it now your explanation that you post words other than what you ment [sic]?
Yeah making up abortion lawsuits. What did you think I said? In context of ABORTION lawsuits...
Two can play at game references the same lawsuits...
Sue the person suing = same lawsuits
same lawsuits = accusing them of helping or having abortions...
Don't take no genius O0
If anyone can make lawsuits cause of dem abortions that applies to ALL people.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 02, 2021, 04:46:44 PM
Yeah making up abortion lawsuits. What did you think I said? In context of ABORTION lawsuits...
Two can play at game references the same lawsuits...
Sue the person suing = same lawsuits
same lawsuits = accusing them of helping or having abortions...
Don't take no genius O0
If anyone can make lawsuits cause of dem abortions that applies to ALL people.
You mean how it takes a genius to learn and use the English language?
Nothing you pretended to lecture on in this post makes any sense.
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 05:23:37 PM
Lawyers are laughing.
And I have no idea what Umni just said.
But an illegal offense with no consequences but that anyone can sue you ?
This is different.
Sometimes you don’t want to take out a dull blade that the other side can sharpen.
And by sharpening it further, you just cut yourself deeper.
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 05:40:44 PM
Average payouts for a wrongful death of a child $4 million.
Sounds like folks better start buying some Sex out of Wedlock Insurance.
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 05:45:49 PM
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 06:43:24 PM
Anonymous tip line for reporting Texas abortions launched under controversial new law is spammed by pro-choice activists with pornography, photos of feces, and fake complaints
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 07:37:04 PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9953581/Anonymous-tip-line-reporting-Texas-abortions-spammed-pro-choice-activists.html
Anonymous tip line for reporting Texas abortions launched under controversial new law is spammed by pro-choice activists with pornography, photos of feces, and fake complaints
Nice
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 07:39:47 PM
I guess this means there will be No Contest abortions just gotta make sure both parties STFU about it? Download a boiler plate NDA?
Just get in a car and drive to another state flush the thing out. It's just a burden tactic like making you go to hpd 3 times. But no one's hypocritical here about those Constitutional rights.
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 07:54:15 PM
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 07:56:00 PM
the thing ... stay classy retard.
#ignorethepoint
#goalpostmoving
Stay classy. We both know I don't think it's a human. Hypocrites can't admit.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 02, 2021, 07:58:06 PM
Not what you said.Goal post moving.
"Two can play at that game, just sue the people suing or make lawsuits up against people."
Is it now your explanation that you post words other than what you ment [sic]?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 08:00:27 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Ivx7O6U.jpg)
(http://emilysquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Lifes-hard.-Its-even-harder-when-youre-stupid..jpg)
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 08:35:52 PM
'CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS'
(https://i.imgur.com/Ivx7O6U.jpg)
(http://emilysquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Lifes-hard.-Its-even-harder-when-youre-stupid..jpg)
Supreme Court said abortion is a constitutional right. Stay mad bro. It's right up there with the right to be armed.
Man you must live a exceedingly hard life. Probably have commercials asking people to donate to you too help you out.
Post by: macsak on September 02, 2021, 08:57:19 PM
Supreme Court said abortion is a constitutional right. Stay made bro. It's right up there with the right to be armed.
Man you must live a exceedingly hard life. Probably have commercials asking people to donate to you too help you out.
"reputable"...
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 09:21:09 PM
Supreme Court said abortion is a constitutional right. Stay mad bro. It's right up there with the right to be armed.
Man you must live a exceedingly hard life. Probably have commercials asking people to donate to you too help you out.
name the case, every supreme court case has a name, you should be able to google it. Hurry up.
and when you try Roe vs. Wade you will find that was a medical Privacy case, has nothing specifically to do with abortion. there is a huge fear that R v W will be overturned if pushed. And thats exactly why they lied and said Kavanaugh is a Solo Cup Rapist.
Keep being a stupid liar.
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 09:26:03 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 02, 2021, 09:37:56 PM
Supreme Court said abortion is a constitutional right. Stay mad bro. It's right up there with the right to be armed.
Man you must live a exceedingly hard life. Probably have commercials asking people to donate to you too help you out.
I find it ridiculous that in the 2 centuries prior to Roe v. Wade, the "individual Constitutionally protected right to abortion" escaped the notice of every single judicial and legal scholar in all 50 states. That's 200 years of a right going totally unrecognized, then finally "discovered" by a Liberal-leaning Supreme Court in a split decision and using some very shaky and flimsy legal arguments regarding privacy.
Amazing. :crazy:
If Roe v Wade were overturned today, the only thing that would change is states would be tasked with defining how abortions are to be made legal and illegal. The "right" would still be protected in states where abortions remain legal and unrestricted. And, just like all other "rights", simply applying restrictions doesn't a ban make.
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 09:38:59 PM
name the case, every supreme court case has a name, you should be able to google it. Hurry up.
and when you try Roe vs. Wade you will find that was a medical Privacy case, has nothing specifically to do with abortion. there is a huge fear that R v W will be overturned if pushed. And thats exactly why they lied and said Kavanaugh is a Solo Cup Rapist.
Keep being a stupid liar.
Roe v Wade still counts. Stay mad.
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 09:39:55 PM
I find it ridiculous that in the 2 centuries prior to Roe v. Wade, the "individual Constitutionally protected right to abortion" escaped the notice of every single judicial and legal scholar in all 50 states. That's 200 years of a right going totally unrecognized, then finally "discovered" by a Liberal-leaning Supreme Court in a split decision and using some very shaky and flimsy legal arguments regarding privacy.
Amazing. :crazy:
If Roe v Wade were overturned today, the only thing that would change is states would be tasked with defining how abortions are to be made legal and illegal. The "right" would still be protected in states where abortions remain legal and unrestricted. And, just like all other "rights", simply applying restrictions doesn't a ban make.
Maybe the founders/predecessors couldn't imagine such a wonderful tool would be available. Much like cellphones and nukes. Thats why the wrote it so broad. Much like the 2nd amendment.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 02, 2021, 09:41:23 PM
Roe v Wade still counts. Stay mad.
Sounds like you are the mad one, brah! Whining about Texas and the fact that not everyone agrees with you -- actually more disagree than agree.
So, if anyone is staying mad, it's you .... and nobody has to tell you to "stay".
LOL!! :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 02, 2021, 09:42:59 PM
Maybe the founders/predecessors couldn't imagine such a wonderful tool would be available. Much like cellphones and nukes. Thats why the wrote it so broad. Much like the 2nd amendment.
200 years ..... long after the Founders were gone from the Earth.
Swoosh!
LOL!
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 09:45:01 PM
Roe v Wade still counts. Stay mad.
counts for what? what was the SCOTUS decision? its a lot of reading I doubt you are up to it. but give it a shot. tell us all what the Court decided.
Post by: omnigun on September 02, 2021, 10:12:12 PM
counts for what? what was the SCOTUS decision? its a lot of reading I doubt you are up to it. but give it a shot. tell us all what the Court decided.
Yes it was a SCOTUS decision...
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Ponder little bit.
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 10:23:05 PM
Yes it was a SCOTUS decision...
(http://i2.wp.com/www.idiomsandslang.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/The-Lights-Are-On-But-Nobodys-Home-1.jpg?fit=470%2C315)
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 10:27:09 PM
So when will the Supreme Court decide when a life is a life and when it’s murder ?
Ponder little bit.
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 10:31:56 PM
So when will the Supreme Court decide when a life is a life and when it’s murder ?
Ponder little bit.
I know you know, but for the people with a learning disability and the memory of a goldfish, the SCOTUS decides which of the arguments brought before it are valid within the law and follow the Constitution. Arguing when that moment is a tough one to pull off.
But the TX case is a huge deal because the SCOTUS just said State law on the issue is none of the Feds business. And that is a big deal. The myth that 'R v W is the law of the land' just got kicked in the nuts.
Short versions as I understand it are
R v W - 'Its not the governments business what medical procedures a person chooses to have"
TX case - 'Its not the Feds business what laws on this issue the states decide to pass"
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 10:34:21 PM
.sinister or brilliant? I don’t know.
Only civil penalties (or victories) by everyone (or no one), but no criminal penalties……
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 10:38:03 PM
It’s a way bigger deal because of the way they approached it.
.sinister or brilliant. I don’t know.
Paxton is no joke, he is creative as hell. his attempt to sue other states for ruining the country (and therefore his state) by letting rigged elections get certified was brilliant and had a real shot, the SCOTUS were pussies and punted so they didnt have to touch it and hear the arguments.
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 10:42:10 PM
Only civil penalties (or victories/ losses) by everyone and anyone (or no one), but no criminal penalties……
Everyone has standing.
For a criminal offense.
Unconstitutional?
Shit’s mind bending.
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 10:47:03 PM
Now the Village can sue you for killing that kid.
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 10:49:24 PM
I don’t care who invented the playbook.
Shit’s disturbing, preponderance of evidence?
Edited after below post:
Literally someone else has to shit on you whose not the State ?
Post by: Glasser on September 02, 2021, 10:54:48 PM
I am not sure who is the sinister folks in this equation. TX seems to be fighting fire with fire when idiots want to get extreme beyond any sensible measure.
Post by: aieahound on September 02, 2021, 11:02:40 PM
someone else has to spew their beliefs on you whose not the State and sue you to get busted? (Now I care)
People can gold dig off your ass because you got an abortion……..
Is this the way law will turn ?
And what’s the over under on that Supreme Court year ? 2099 ?
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 06:19:16 AM
I know you know, but for the people with a learning disability and the memory of a goldfish, the SCOTUS decides which of the arguments brought before it are valid within the law and follow the Constitution. Arguing when that moment is a tough one to pull off.
But the TX case is a huge deal because the SCOTUS just said State law on the issue is none of the Feds business. And that is a big deal. The myth that 'R v W is the law of the land' just got kicked in the nuts.
Short versions as I understand it are
R v W - 'Its not the governments business what medical procedures a person chooses to have"
TX case - 'Its not the Feds business what laws on this issue the states decide to pass"
So if Hawaii as a state wanted to ban all guns I guess you will say states rights?
Post by: drck1000 on September 03, 2021, 06:56:54 AM
"reputable"...What was your GPA? :P
:shake: 8)
Post by: Glasser on September 03, 2021, 07:23:03 AM
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 07:39:04 AM
Seems to me if the government says they should be allowed to force people to take vaccines to protect the lives of 'others' than they should also be forcing women to take birth control to protect kids from being aborted.
They are not kids. Same way a braindead coma patient is not alive. We have been over this. Fetus's are no more alive than a piece of hair. Also so far the government has not "forced" vaccines. There is/should always be an option just to get tested weekly.
Even if they were somehow "alive" the mother takes priority.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 03, 2021, 07:49:18 AM
Sounds like you are the mad one, brah! Whining about Texas and the fact that not everyone agrees with you -- actually more disagree than agree.He even asked why i didnt post about it in a non abortion thread.
So, if anyone is staying mad, it's you .... and nobody has to tell you to "stay".
LOL!! :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
Hence craving attention.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 03, 2021, 07:50:24 AM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.idiomsandslang.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/The-Lights-Are-On-But-Nobodys-Home-1.jpg?fit=470%2C315)He knows hes wrong and is deflecting again.
"Tell us what scotus ruled"
"Yes, scotus ruled"
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 03, 2021, 07:52:22 AM
Not that long ago Dems were pushing for 'abortion' to be legally performed literally after the child left the mothers womb. Virginia was saying they wanted to let the mother decide whether to kill it or not after delivery.Didnt NY allow up to the second b4 the baby comes out?
I am not sure who is the sinister folks in this equation. TX seems to be fighting fire with fire when idiots want to get extreme beyond any sensible measure.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: groveler on September 03, 2021, 08:04:42 AM
Hillary said it takes a Village to raise a child.Excellent summary of a complex law.
Now the Village can sue you for killing that kid.
:thumbsup:
Post by: macsak on September 03, 2021, 08:17:39 AM
What was your GPA? :P
:shake: 8)
what do you think?
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 08:42:23 AM
He even asked why i didnt post about it in a non abortion thread.
Hence craving attention.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Meh you always ranting about slippy slopes and directly relating it to the holocaust and nazis. So it was on topic in the holocaust thread.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 03, 2021, 08:53:20 AM
what do you think?
If he claims 3.7 is his and post the way he does, then that means the 4.0 scale has been shattered and everyone here is like 9.8/10.0. So more like 3.7/10.0
Post by: Glasser on September 03, 2021, 09:00:06 AM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nXkCZ2GjcoM/Uuqg7TYzREI/AAAAAAAANWg/2JrPa3_ZNX4/s1600/Forward-obama-socialism-cliff-lemmings.jpg)
Post by: macsak on September 03, 2021, 09:04:44 AM
SlipperySlippy slopes are long gone, its lemmings running off cliffs now.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nXkCZ2GjcoM/Uuqg7TYzREI/AAAAAAAANWg/2JrPa3_ZNX4/s1600/Forward-obama-socialism-cliff-lemmings.jpg)
fify
Post by: drck1000 on September 03, 2021, 09:12:25 AM
what do you think?2.75
???
;D
Post by: drck1000 on September 03, 2021, 09:14:46 AM
If he claims 3.7 is his and post the way he does, then that means the 4.0 scale has been shattered and everyone here is like 9.8/10.0. So more like 3.7/10.0Think you're off by a significant digit. . .
Post by: Glasser on September 03, 2021, 12:11:16 PM
Here are some steps women can do. Since men seem to only want us having sex when WE are ready to have children, then WE do NOT have sex with them UNTIL WE are ready to have children. See how well that works out for them.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GeniaGlover/status/1433597910529228803
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 03, 2021, 12:28:02 PM
Ummm, swoosh?Maybe a good thing. Less liberal influence.
Here are some steps women can do. Since men seem to only want us having sex when WE are ready to have children, then WE do NOT have sex with them UNTIL WE are ready to have children. See how well that works out for them.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GeniaGlover/status/1433597910529228803
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 12:35:06 PM
Maybe a good thing. Less liberal influence.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
So much for Texas becoming the second tech hub.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 12:40:34 PM
I can't wait for this to play out. Satanic temple FTW. If there was ever a religion for me to join it be that one.
https://fortune.com/2021/09/03/why-satanists-may-be-the-last-hope-to-take-down-texass-abortion-bill/
Post by: aieahound on September 03, 2021, 12:41:18 PM
So much for Texas becoming the second tech hub.
Because of an abortion law ?
A Social Justice Cause ?
Post by: Glasser on September 03, 2021, 12:43:49 PM
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 12:45:06 PM
Because of an abortion law ?
A Social Justice Cause ?
Companies like states with good laws. Good for business. Too much risk if a bunch of idiot republicans go full retard religion laws.
Thankfully because of their idiocy, and worshipping of religious freedoms. People like the wonderful members of the satanic temple can also get exemptions for religious freedom to HAVE abortions. :shaka:
Works both ways :geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
Post by: Glasser on September 03, 2021, 12:55:28 PM
Stereotypes are fun.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 01:48:07 PM
So if Hawaii as a state wanted to ban all guns I guess you will say states rights?
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution specifically protects the right to keep and bear arms IN ALL STATES.
Remind me ... which amendment in the Bill of Rights/Constitution specifically protects a woman's right to abort her unborn child?
Oh, yeah. That's right. If the right is not in the Constitution, the STATES get to decide for themselves:
Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
Quote
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
Post by: aieahound on September 03, 2021, 01:55:52 PM
But the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade itself when it hears a Mississippi case this fall called "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health."
(That last sentence was plagiarized)
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 03, 2021, 01:56:22 PM
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution specifically protects the right to keep and bear arms IN ALL STATES.And we went full circle again cause somebody doesnt understand the constitution/bill of rights/amendments.
Remind me ... which amendment in the Bill of Rights/Constitution specifically protects a woman's right to abort her unborn child?
Oh, yeah. That's right. If the right is not in the Constitution, the STATES get to decide for themselves:
Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 02:10:20 PM
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution specifically protects the right to keep and bear arms IN ALL STATES.
Remind me ... which amendment in the Bill of Rights/Constitution specifically protects a woman's right to abort her unborn child?
Oh, yeah. That's right. If the right is not in the Constitution, the STATES get to decide for themselves:
Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. #nostatesrightsonthatonebub
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 02:12:28 PM
There is actually Roe v. Wade.
But the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade itself when it hears a Mississippi case this fall called "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health."
(That last sentence was plagiarized)
R v W is a Supreme Court decision that protects the privacy of abortion doctors to perform abortions. It did not discover a new right in the Constitution that all states have to abide by. The flimsy "right to privacy argument" doesn't hold water in the context of abortions. It's not about a woman's right to choose as much as it is a doctor's right to provide the procedure. The court shoehorned abortion into the Constitution using a concept that isn't applied equally in any other situation. If they did, then all recreational drug use would be protected.
Go read the massive number of articles written about it. Roe v. Wade was bad law pushed through the court to do what Liberals said was a good thing. The same group is now terrified of Roe v. Wade being revisited, because they know in their hearts it won't withstand further scrutiny given the abuse of the current abortion parameters allowing for late-term and post-delivery abortions/murders.
When passed, the ruling said "safe, legal and rare." Now it's "free, on-demand, and whenever I want - as often as I want."
The "slippery slope" paradigm has been on full display as a result of that ruling. It's past time to go back and see how we can fix this. Until politicians and judges grow a backbone and agree to even try, having it revert back to a state's rights issue makes the most sense.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 02:15:34 PM
#nothypocritical
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 02:15:51 PM
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. #nostatesrightsonthatonebub
Show me where "due process" is a synonym for "abortion rights."
Post by: aieahound on September 03, 2021, 02:17:57 PM
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 02:18:39 PM
Show me where "due process" is a synonym for "abortion rights."
The supreme court ruling says. They decide meaning. If they said the 2nd amendment was only muskets then we would all have to follow that too.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 02:20:02 PM
If Roe v Wade is shot down poor people won't get abortions and rich people will. It will change nothing to the morality. If I got a girl preggo and we didn't want it, just go to a state that allows it and bam that thing is flushed. It just makes life harder like how people here constantly bitch about HPD or state laws. But people are ok with making abortion hard but not okay with 2nd amendment related things.
#nothypocritical
That's BS. You are swallowing the crap fed to you by the extreme Left.
Abortions should be difficult. It's not an easy thing to decide to kill a child before it's born. Look at how many safeguards and reviews are in place when someone is sentenced to death for a crime. We make that process hard for the state because taking a life should not be as easy as signing a piece of paper.
If that's an easy decision for you, then you're broken deep down somewhere.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 02:22:06 PM
The supreme court ruling says. They decide meaning. If they said the 2nd amendment was only muskets then we would all have to follow that too.
Show me where the Supreme Court said that. I tell you they did not.
They said doctors can perform abortions legally. That they can not be charged with a crime under the Constitution. Nothing about the decision said women have a right to choose.
As for muskets -- are you high?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 02:22:39 PM
Right wrong or indifferent. It’s still Federal.
Not the issue.
Post by: aieahound on September 03, 2021, 02:23:36 PM
Might not be that hard a decision for them.
I don’t know I’m not them.
When does the Supreme Court decide when it’s a Right vs. when it’s murder ?
Or you’re saying Roe v. Wade does not give women the Right to choose ?
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 02:23:42 PM
That's BS. You are swallowing the crap fed to you by the extreme Left.
Abortions should be difficult. It's not an easy thing to decide to kill a child before it's born. Look at how many safeguards and reviews are in place when someone is sentenced to death for a crime. We make that process hard for the state because taking a life should not be as easy as signing a piece of paper.
If that's an easy decision for you, then you're broken deep down somewhere.
Why should it be difficult? Who says? Regardless its not your decision to make. If some women wanted to have an giant EZ button to get an abortion I would be all for it. That's their body and whatever they do with it has 0 effect on me or public safety or anyone else but them. For the billionth time its not "alive" just like a braindead coma patient. Pull the plug on either and they won't survive on their own. That's how I judge life.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 02:26:57 PM
Show me where the Supreme Court said that. I tell you they did not.
They said doctors can perform abortions legally. That they can not be charged with a crime under the Constitution. Nothing about the decision said women have a right to choose.
As for muskets -- are you high?
The point is privacy and the Texas law violates that. By breaking privacy to find out if they had an abortion to do a civil suit. Also the point is the supreme court has final say on how to read laws and the constitution. Whatever they decide is how it goes.
In the end it doesn't really matter. The satanic temple has a very good point. Religious freedoms are protected and abortions can fall under that. Soon it will be back to normal with a small step of invoking your religious freedom to abort.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 02:33:52 PM
The point is privacy and the Texas law violates that. By breaking privacy to find out if they had an abortion to do a civil suit. Also the point is the supreme court has final say on how to read laws and the constitution. Whatever they decide is how it goes.
In the end it doesn't really matter. The satanic temple has a very good point. Religious freedoms are protected and abortions can fall under that. Soon it will be back to normal with a small step of invoking your religious freedom to abort.
Because you said so? LOL!!
Is it an invasion of privacy when you get busted for using heroin? What about "my body, my choice?" How is it possible the the same federal laws and Supreme Court that decided "privacy" in cases of abortion ignored privacy in cases of drug use? Hmmm.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 02:38:19 PM
Because you said so? LOL!!
Is it an invasion of privacy when you get busted for using heroin? What about "my body, my choice?" How is it possible the the same federal laws and Supreme Court that decided "privacy" in cases of abortion ignored privacy in cases of drug use? Hmmm.
There's a reason why you cant get double charged for a criminal not registering a gun. Honestly the same thing should be for heroin. I fully support that. Your body your rights. If you want to ban drugs prosecute the sale only. Some dude getting high doesn't effect me either.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 02:49:09 PM
If life begins at 6 weeks, then everyone in Texas could sue to collect on life insurance policies after a miscarriage. Doubt they would win, because the insurance companies would argue that there's no loss of life and the courts would agree with them.
Force the courts to acknowledge, in writing, that the loss of a pregnancy after six weeks does not count as a loss of life.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 02:54:36 PM
Hope this law is canned soon for Texas's own good.
Post by: Glasser on September 03, 2021, 02:56:45 PM
Post by: ren on September 03, 2021, 03:02:18 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 03:04:47 PM
I saw an interesting viewpoint.
If life begins at 6 weeks, then everyone in Texas could sue to collect on life insurance policies after a miscarriage. Doubt they would win, because the insurance companies would argue that there's no loss of life and the courts would agree with them.
Force the courts to acknowledge, in writing, that the loss of a pregnancy after six weeks does not count as a loss of life.
That's not how life insurance works at all. If you think that's "interesting" or even feasible, you really need to research things you read before glomming onto them.
I bought insurance policies for both my kids when my wife was pregnant. Benefit was $5,000, enough to take care of burial expenses and maybe some medical costs. After they were born, I converted them into $25,000 policies which included guaranteed insurability. We/they could add to the benefit amount without any medical questions or chance of disqualification. This was in the era of AIDS just being identified and understood. Knowing people were contracting HIV from blood transfusions and use of blood products, there was a cloud of uncertainty surrounding it. No cure -- no way to be sure you can prevent it. Insurance companies don't like to write new policies on sick people with incurable diseases.
The policies are written such that the child must be outside the womb for a given number of days -- I think it was 7, maybe 10. Regardless, after that point, if the child is unable to live, the policy will pay.
Given the miracles of modern science, a child with no real chance to survive could be kept on a respirator after birth long enough to have the policy time period satisfied.
A miscarriage is not a birth, and unless the fetus can be kept breathing mechanically or not, no insurance company will pay.
Maybe if you knew something about the real world and how it operates, you'd be able to post more intelligent comments. This one is 100% off base.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 03, 2021, 03:05:32 PM
Impossible to have a conversation with a person who can't/ won't read the topics being discussed. Dummy literally is just making keyword salads out of terms he has heard loosely associated with the subject. It's like watching someone finger paint with their own poo.
That's why I ignore. Can't reason with some people.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 03, 2021, 03:08:45 PM
That's not how life insurance works at all. If you think that's "interesting" or even feasible, you really need to research things you read before glomming onto them.
I bought insurance policies for both my kids when my wife was pregnant. Benefit was $5,000, enough to take care of burial expenses and maybe some medical costs. After they were born, I converted them into $25,000 policies which included guaranteed insurability. We/they could add to the benefit about without any medical questions or chance of disqualification. This was in the era of AID just being identified and understood. Knowing people were contracting HIV from blood transfusions and use of blood products, there was a cloud of uncertainty surrounding it. No cure -- no way to be sure you can prevent it. Insurance companies don't like to write new policies on sick people with incurable diseases.
The policies are written such that the child must be outside the womb for a given number of days -- I think it was 7, maybe 10. Regardless, after than point, if the child is unable to live, the policy will pay.
Given the miracles of modern science, a child with no real chance to survive could be kept on a respirator after birth long enough to have the policy time period satisfied.
A miscarriage is not a birth, and unless the fetus can be kept breathing mechanically or not, no insurance company will pay.
Maybe if you knew something about the real world and how it operates, you'd be able to post more intelligent comments. This one is 100% off base.
Again, typical non real world experience and offering his advice he knows nothing about. . But hey, like usual, what works in his mind is all that matters.
Expert in Econ, global warming, war, international policy, abortion, insurance.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 03:10:58 PM
Again, typical non real world experience and offering his advice he knows nothing about. . But hey, like usual, what works in his mind is all that matters.
Expert in Econ, global warming, war, international policy, abortion, insurance.
Don't leave out his favorite: religion!
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 03:16:49 PM
Guess no comment on how potentially a vast number of people and business could be sued under the texas law. You can sue your mailman.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 03:18:05 PM
Don't leave out his favorite: religion!
I'm pretty decent at religion. Its mostly stupid. :shaka: Except the satanic temple.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 03:20:21 PM
I said the life insurance thing was interesting. Guess its not possible thanks.
Guess no comment on how potentially a vast number of people and business could be sued under the texas law. You can sue your mailman.
Can we sue you for harassment?
Class Action would be fine.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 03:21:15 PM
I'm pretty decent at religion. Its mostly stupid. :shaka: Except the satanic temple.
Religion is "mostly stupid", which makes you abundantly qualified to lecture on it.
I get it.
:geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
Post by: aieahound on September 03, 2021, 03:30:21 PM
I saw an interesting viewpoint.
If life begins at 6 weeks, then everyone in Texas could sue to collect on life insurance policies after a miscarriage. Doubt they would win, because the insurance companies would argue that there's no loss of life and the courts would agree with them.
Force the courts to acknowledge, in writing, that the loss of a pregnancy after six weeks does not count as a loss of life.
Interesting point for those who haven’t pondered it.
When does the Supreme Court define loss of life ?
When is it murder to have an abortion ?
Example given is contract law though.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 03:54:36 PM
Can we sue you for harassment?
Class Action would be fine.
You could try. Frivolous lawsuit though be warned.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 03:56:59 PM
Interesting point for those who haven’t pondered it.
When does the Supreme Court define loss of life ?
When is it murder to have an abortion ?
Example given is contract law though.
The courts have dabbled in this when charging someone double homicide for killing a pregnant person. Now that I think about it you are correct it would be not that great of a precedent and really hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Post by: Brystont1 on September 03, 2021, 03:57:34 PM
Impossible to have a conversation with a person who can't/ won't read the topics being discussed. Dummy literally is just making keyword salads out of terms he has heard loosely associated with the subject. It's like watching someone finger paint with their own poo.
He’s clearly losing it over this lol. I’ll back off for now for his sake. But I’ll be back in a few days to explain how a brain dead coma patient who has no chance of recovering is different from a 6 week fetus who will at some point (in his mind) become what he calls sentient. A brain dead coma patient who would recover in let’s say 40 weeks would not have the plug pulled on him no matter how “brain dead.” This has already been explained to him and he half admitted he was wrong ( you all know how that goes) but he must’ve forgot.
See yah in a few days lol.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 04:07:59 PM
He’s clearly losing it over this lol. I’ll back off for now for his sake. But I’ll be back in a few days to explain how a brain dead coma patient who has no chance of recovering is different from a 6 week fetus who will at some point (in his mind) become what he calls sentient. A brain dead coma patient who would recover in let’s say 40 weeks would not have the plug pulled on him no matter how “brain dead.” This has already been explained to him and he half admitted he was wrong ( you all know how that goes) but he must’ve forgot.
See yah in a few days lol.
It's not about the future it's about the present. There's no guarantee of what will happen. If that was the case everyone wouldn't be alive because we will all die eventually. Life is mainly judged on if it can survive. If you pulled a baby out of the womb it would die. It's not alive. If you unplug the vegetable it would also die. So not alive either.
Human life also requires sentience which a fetus and brain dead person lacks.
Post by: drck1000 on September 03, 2021, 04:16:05 PM
Post by: ren on September 03, 2021, 04:28:49 PM
this is what happens when someone visits the "satanic temple"
just sick definitely not a family person
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 03, 2021, 04:34:03 PM
Holy full rahtardNever go full retard.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Brystont1 on September 03, 2021, 04:35:45 PM
It's not about the future it's about the present. There's no guarantee of what will happen. If that was the case everyone wouldn't be alive because we will all die eventually. Life is mainly judged on if it can survive. If you pulled a baby out of the womb it would die. It's not alive. If you unplug the vegetable it would also die. So not alive either.
Human life also requires sentience which a fetus and brain dead person lacks.
So let’s say that you had an accident at the range and bullet goes through your brain. Your on life support (brain dead) but doctor says you can fully recover in 40 weeks. Since it’s all about the present your family could pull the plug on you right? Got it.
If only the government could step in on your behalf.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 04:41:53 PM
someone just went full retard
this is what happens when someone visits the "satanic temple"
just sick definitely not a family person
I'm starting to think his new "steady girlfriend" takes PayPal $$ and may not even live in Hawaii.
God help us if he procreates.
Post by: ren on September 03, 2021, 04:52:30 PM
I'm starting to think his new "steady girlfriend" takes PayPal $$ and may not even live in Hawaii.
God help us if he procreates.
(https://c.tenor.com/fxjXVM3yvdoAAAAM/silence-of-the-lambs-hannibal.gif)
Post by: groveler on September 03, 2021, 05:10:19 PM
I see you've read Dr. Peter Singer. It was required reading at my university Philosophy class.
It's not about the future it's about the present. There's no guarantee of what will happen. If that was the case everyone wouldn't be alive because we will all die eventually. Life is mainly judged on if it can survive. If you pulled a baby out of the womb it would die. It's not alive. If you unplug the vegetable it would also die. So not alive either.
Human life also requires sentience which a fetus and brain dead person lacks.
I assume it was required at your secular school? His teaching are popular with Democrats.
>:D
Post by: Glasser on September 03, 2021, 05:26:54 PM
I see you've read ...
.....
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/414/806/d12.png)
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 05:27:30 PM
someone just went full retard
this is what happens when someone visits the "satanic temple"
just sick definitely not a family person
Not sick and I plan to procreate. Will teach them to be open minded and freedom based and all about religious lies.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 05:33:26 PM
So let’s say that you had an accident at the range and bullet goes through your brain. Your on life support (brain dead) but doctor says you can fully recover in 40 weeks. Since it’s all about the present your family could pull the plug on you right? Got it.
If only the government could step in on your behalf.
Slightly contradictory. If you are brain dead then you can't recover. I wouldn't want the government to step in. Its between my family and my will. If I lose my consciousness and sentience I am dead. Living as a human has 2 main requirements. Sentience and being able to survive (within reason). Lack both and you are not alive. A fetus lacks both. A brain dead coma patient lacks both. If you are somehow able to recover you don't lack both. Hopefully this explains my thought process better. An artificial heart etc, would be considered being able to survive, as other things like medicine etc. What makes humans unique and different than every other flesh blob on this planet is our ability to think and have a sense of self.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
I see you've read Dr. Peter Singer. It was required reading at my university Philosophy class.
I assume it was required at your secular school? His teaching are popular with Democrats.
>:D
I don't agree with many of his thoughts. His realist views are good, but his morality isn't what I subscribe to. I definitely have speciesism. I think Humans are above all others on this planet.
Post by: Brystont1 on September 03, 2021, 05:45:06 PM
Slightly contradictory. If you are brain dead then you can't recover. I wouldn't want the government to step in. Its between my family and my will. If I lose my consciousness and sentience I am dead. Living as a human has 2 main requirements. Sentience and being able to survive (within reason). Lack both and you are not alive. A fetus lacks both. A brain dead coma patient lacks both. If you are somehow able to recover you don't lack both. Hopefully this explains my thought process better. An artificial heart etc, would be considered being able to survive, as other things like medicine etc. What makes humans unique and different than every other flesh blob on this planet is our ability to think and have a sense of self.
Your the one contradicting yourself here.
Your the one that keeps comparing brain dead coma patients to a fetus. Yet a fetus will develop sentience (your word not mine) so by your own definition a fetus is not the same as a brain dead person.
Post by: Glasser on September 03, 2021, 06:02:07 PM
Your the one contradicting yourself here.
that was obvious when he declared he was a Satanist who loves the Government telling him what to do.
Being 'Edgy' when you are in the 7th grade is understandable, when you are still being a Try Hard as an adult, well you are just angry at your parents and they dont care anymore.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 06:23:29 PM
Slightly contradictory. If you are brain dead then you can't recover.
One more time, I have to ask: Where did you get your medical degree?
Another 'Brain Dead' Patient Wakes Up Just in Time
Quote
Twenty-one-year-old Zack Dunlap from Oklahoma appeared on NBC's Today Showhttps://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/902143
in 2008 to tell an incredible story of hearing a physician telling his parents that a PET
scan confirmed that he was brain dead after a catastrophic brain injury. While he was
being prepared for organ donation, however, he moved his arm purposely in response
to stimuli. Dunlap recovered, went to a rehabilitation hospital, and ultimately went home
48 days later, very much alive.[1]
So, your first point is moot, because it is 100% FAKE NEWS and a lie.
Second point is that the coma patient achieved sentience before the event that cased "brain death." The unborn child is developing into a sentient being. They both happen to be something else at the present time.
If it is ethical to pull the plug on a coma patient who has little to no chance of regaining consciousness, how is it also ethical to abort a child that will, in all estimates, become conscious/sentient? You're arguing for the killing of a human being based on FUTURE PROGNOSIS -- one is positive, the other negative. Can't use future sentience to argue for or against one case and not use the same criteria to argue for or against another case.
You're consistent in your inconsistency.
Post by: groveler on September 03, 2021, 07:25:25 PM
.....I could not resist and got an un-expected answer.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/414/806/d12.png)
I'll leave it there.
:popcorn:
Post by: mrgaf on September 03, 2021, 08:16:48 PM
Not sick and I plan to procreate. Will teach them to be open minded and freedom based and all about religious lies.
Please don’t procreate….. the horror! :'(
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 09:40:59 PM
One more time, I have to ask: Where did you get your medical degree?
Another 'Brain Dead' Patient Wakes Up Just in Timehttps://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/902143
So, your first point is moot, because it is 100% FAKE NEWS and a lie.
Second point is that the coma patient achieved sentience before the event that cased "brain death." The unborn child is developing into a sentient being. They both happen to be something else at the present time.
If it is ethical to pull the plug on a coma patient who has little to no chance of regaining consciousness, how is it also ethical to abort a child that will, in all estimates, become conscious/sentient? You're arguing for the killing of a human being based on FUTURE PROGNOSIS -- one is positive, the other negative. Can't use future sentience to argue for or against one case and not use the same criteria to argue for or against another case.
You're consistent in your inconsistency.
I think its ethical, 99+% chance they are dead. I would ask that my plug be pulled. You can't get everything correct always. We do capital punishment on criminals and we are never 100% sure. Are you against that too? We bomb terrorists and do many life and death decisions based on a very good chance.
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 09:43:48 PM
Your the one contradicting yourself here.
Your the one that keeps comparing brain dead coma patients to a fetus. Yet a fetus will develop sentience (your word not mine) so by your own definition a fetus is not the same as a brain dead person.
I see where u can get that. My point is in the present neither have it. The fetus could get a miscarriage. It could die. The future isn't certain. We make our best guess and live with it. What I do know is the mother is sentient, and forcing someone to do something against their will isn't exact good...
See above post about the decisions we humans make over life and death. That criminal on death row could become the worlds savior, or that terrorist could cure cancer.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 03, 2021, 10:37:43 PM
I think its ethical, 99+% chance they are dead. I would ask that my plug be pulled. You can't get everything correct always. We do capital punishment on criminals and we are never 100% sure. Are you against that too? We bomb terrorists and do many life and death decisions based on a very good chance.
Missed my points entirely.
#Doesn'tDeserveASwoosh!
Post by: macsak on September 04, 2021, 05:23:13 AM
I think its ethical, 99+% chance they are dead. I would ask that my plug be pulled. You can't get everything correct always. We do capital punishment on criminals and we are never 100% sure. Are you against that too? We bomb terrorists and do many life and death decisions based on a very good chance.
if it's proven in a court of law, it's always true
or consensus...
Post by: omnigun on September 04, 2021, 08:15:29 AM
Post by: Glasser on September 04, 2021, 10:10:52 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 04, 2021, 10:25:39 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-Y3OZXVQAEs-5B?format=png&name=900x900)BBC?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on September 04, 2021, 10:46:49 AM
if it's proven in a court of law, it's always true#sarcasmishard
or consensus...
Post by: aieahound on September 04, 2021, 12:02:07 PM
Satanists (religion) and abortion collide.
“The state of Texas, with approval from the U.S. Supreme Court, instituted the most draconian set of anti-abortion laws in the last 50 years this Tuesday. While pro-choice advocates scramble to save what’s left of Roe v. Wade, their salvation may come from an unexpected place: The Satanic Temple.
The nontheistic religious group, based out of Salem, Massachusetts, has filed a letter with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration arguing that their members should be allowed to access abortion pills without regulatory action. The temple is attempting to use its status as a religious organization to claim its right to abortion as a faith-based right.
The group argues that they should have access to the abortion pills Misoprostol and Mifepristone for religious use through the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which was created to allow Native Americans access to peyote for religious rituals. Under these rules, the Temple is arguing that they should be granted those same rights to use abortifacients for their own religious purposes.
“I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton—who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about Religious Liberty issues in other states—will be proud to see that Texas’s robust Religious Liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion," wrote Satanic Temple spokesperson, Lucien Greaves in a statement.
…
In the Illinois Capitol rotunda, they were able to install a statue of an arm holding an apple with a snake coiled around it next to a Christmas nativity scene and a Hanukkah menorah.“
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 04, 2021, 02:23:12 PM
I guess that doesn't include Satanists as long as the means justifies the ends.
So much for principle.
Post by: aieahound on September 04, 2021, 02:27:58 PM
Just reported.
Just ironic the two threads run into each other.
Post by: aletheuo137 on September 06, 2021, 11:33:27 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/05/satanic-temple-rallies-against-texas-abortion-law/
Pro-choicers can now count The Satanic Temple among their list of allies in the fight against the recent anti-abortion law in Texas.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aieahound on September 06, 2021, 12:54:03 PM
Is the abortion stance a human rights issue or religious issue ?
Or human rights based religion or non-religion ?
And which human ? Woman or embryo/fetus/child?
Post by: Glasser on September 06, 2021, 01:28:22 PM
She was paying drug addicted women $300 to get a tubal ligation or a lifetime of Norplant to keep them from sh*tting out kids they couldnt care for.
They called her a racist and a eugenicist. But all she was doing was trying to stop abortions the cheap / easy way. Birth Control
Post by: omnigun on September 06, 2021, 03:22:17 PM
Whats really ironic is the Pro-Abortion people throw a huge fit when someone like Barbara Harris comes along and starts a group like Project Prevention.
She was paying drug addicted women $300 to get a tubal ligation or a lifetime of Norplant to keep them from sh*tting out kids they couldnt care for.
They called her a racist and a eugenicist. But all she was doing was trying to stop abortions the cheap / easy way. Birth Control
That sounds like a good idea too. If they willing participants don't see anything wrong.
Post by: omnigun on September 06, 2021, 03:24:20 PM
Interesting question.
Is the abortion stance a human rights issue or religious issue ?
Or human rights based religion or non-religion ?
And which human ? Woman or embryo/fetus/child?
It's mostly the religious who biach the most. They desperately want to enforce their religious beliefs on others. Everyone live by their shitty rules. I bet if Christians were against pork they would try to ban that too. Look at the middle east.
Post by: omnigun on September 06, 2021, 03:26:53 PM
The Satanic Temple Rallies Against Texas Abortion Law
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/05/satanic-temple-rallies-against-texas-abortion-law/
Pro-choicers can now count The Satanic Temple among their list of allies in the fight against the recent anti-abortion law in Texas.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I want to support them but they sold out of their cards. Wonder if they take PayPal.
Post by: omnigun on September 06, 2021, 03:28:56 PM
I could have sworn there were people on this forum claiming that no laws or government decisions should be based on religion -- any religion.
I guess that doesn't include Satanists as long as the means justifies the ends.
So much for principle.
The "satanists" if you bothered reading their site says religion should play no part in government. They are not saying you should get abortions but you should be able to make your own decisions. They are basically close to atheists. But they had to make a religion to battle the shitty religious focused culture in America.
Post by: aieahound on September 06, 2021, 03:31:46 PM
I want to support them but they sold out of their cards. Wonder if they take PayPal.Self deprecating humor. Step in the right direction I guess.
It's mostly the religious who biach the most. They desperately want to enforce their religious beliefs on others. Everyone live by their shitty rules. I bet if Christians were against pork they would try to ban that too. Look at the middle east.
Ponder sometimes. You answer like you have the answer. Which you don’t. No offense.
My wife and I are not religious but we have very different views on abortion.
For a lot of people it may be based in religion, or lack or religion.
The fact it’s legal or illegal and up for popular vote is a trip.
Post by: Brystont1 on September 06, 2021, 03:45:06 PM
Self deprecating humor. Step in the right direction I guess.
Ponder sometimes. You answer like you have the answer. Which you don’t. No offense.
My wife and I are not religious but we have very different views on abortion.
For a lot of people it may be based in religion, or lack or religion.
The fact it’s legal or illegal and up for popular vote is a trip.
I’m not religious at all. Although Omni likes to strawman a lot by bringing religion religion religion even though no one here, as far as I’ve seen, has used religion to justify any sort of policy.
I look at it from a human rights perspective. If you believe a fetus is a human then that fetus deserves the same protection as my 1 day old newborn.
People like Omni do not fundamentally understand the pro life stance which is why this thread is 50 pages too long.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 06, 2021, 03:55:26 PM
You don't need religion to know what's right and wrong. Most people learn early in life regardless of culture or teaching that life is important, and that the taking of life is wrong without justification.
Most laws are based on standards of behavior that society agrees are beneficial.
Human/civil rights are universally defined whether they are protected or not. Right to life is probably the most basic and fundamental right of all humans. Taking a life takes away from that person everything they have, everything they will ever have, and everything they are or will ever be.
The issue is whether the mother can unilaterally choose for the baby whether or not it is allowed to develop to full term and have a life -- and rights -- of its own.
When people call developing fetuses "parasites", it's an attempt to dehumanize the developing child to make abortion sound less like killing a future person.
Post by: omnigun on September 06, 2021, 04:05:06 PM
I’m not religious at all. Although Omni likes to strawman a lot by bringing religion religion religion even though no one here, as far as I’ve seen, has used religion to justify any sort of policy.
I look at it from a human rights perspective. If you believe a fetus is a human then that fetus deserves the same protection as my 1 day old newborn.
People like Omni do not fundamentally understand the pro life stance which is why this thread is 50 pages too long.
Many who legislate the laws restricting abortion often cite God or religion. Sorry I don't understand. I just can't see how a bunch of cells is alive. I lose akin cells and hair and don't bat an eye. I've flushed many millions of sperm cells out. I don't ponder what they could of been.
Post by: omnigun on September 06, 2021, 04:08:25 PM
That's my opinion, too.
You don't need religion to know what's right and wrong. Most people learn early in life regardless of culture or teaching that life is important, and that the taking of life is wrong without justification.
Most laws are based on standards of behavior that society agrees are beneficial.
Human/civil rights are universally defined whether they are protected or not. Right to life is probably the most basic and fundamental right of all humans. Taking a life takes away from that person everything they have, everything they will ever have, and everything they are or will ever be.
The issue is whether the mother can unilaterally choose for the baby whether or not it is allowed to develop to full term and have a life -- and rights -- of its own.
When people call developing fetuses "parasites", it's an attempt to dehumanize the developing child to make abortion sound less like killing a future person.
It is a parasite theoretically/technically. The problem with that approach is you are valuing the maybe life more than the full human. Forcing said full 100% sentient human to do something against their will. For 9 months and be in pain during birth. What happened to female rights. Hell what happened to male rights be has no say in it either.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 06, 2021, 04:12:01 PM
Many who legislate the laws restricting abortion often cite God or religion. Sorry I don't understand. I just can't see how a bunch of cells is alive. I lose akin cells and hair and don't bat an eye. I've flushed many millions of sperm cells out. I don't ponder what they could of been.
And here we go again.
You've posted the same comments over and over. Why is another iteration going to matter to anyone other than you feeding your ego?
You said, "It's mostly the religious who biach the most."
Then you just said, "Many who legislate the laws restricting abortion often cite God or religion."
So, you went from "biaching" to "legislate the laws" (as if legislating the laws is a "thing" -- legislating is the passing of laws, so to add "laws" is redundant.).
Moving of goal posts, or just unable to focus on what your narrative should include? Are you only focused on the people passing laws, or are you "biaching" about everyone who opposes your beliefs?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 06, 2021, 04:14:48 PM
It is a parasite theoretically/technically. The problem with that approach is you are valuing the maybe life more than the full human. Forcing said full 100% sentient human to do something against their will. For 9 months and be in pain during birth. What happened to female rights. Hell what happened to male rights be has no say in it either.
I'm not debating you. You have nothing to say that you haven't stumbled over multiple times already.
Why you feel the need to regurgitate your beliefs ad nauseam seems pathological.
Post by: macsak on September 06, 2021, 04:15:38 PM
It's mostly the religious who biach the most. They desperately want to enforce their religious beliefs on others. Everyone live by their shitty rules. I bet if Christians were against pork they would try to ban that too. Look at the middle east.
yet you constantly post your views on abortion, church, freedom, politics, consensus, court of law
over and over and over and over and over
Post by: macsak on September 06, 2021, 04:19:04 PM
I’m not religious at all. Although Omni likes to strawman a lot by bringing religion religion religion even though no one here, as far as I’ve seen, has used religion to justify any sort of policy.
I look at it from a human rights perspective. If you believe a fetus is a human then that fetus deserves the same protection as my 1 day old newborn.
Omni does not fundamentally understand anything which is why every thread he participates in is 50 pages too long.
FIFY
Post by: aieahound on September 06, 2021, 05:12:28 PM
Because we’re just getting rid of two halves of the human ?
Preemptive strike ?
Should jerking off be illegal?
You know those sperm. One had chance.
Also.
Welfare ? Starving ? No housing ? Abandoned to whoever ? Society pays for it ? Severely disabled , etc…..
Why is it societies choice?
.
That's my opinion, too.
You don't need religion to know what's right and wrong. Most people learn early in life regardless of culture or teaching that life is important, and that the taking of life is wrong without justification.
Unfortunately this is obviously not one of those times and arguable on both sides.
Are they taking a “life”? Without justification?
What about the woman ? No regard ?
Back to square one if no religion is involved.
They should ban abortion and make the father raise the kid.
Never mind. It’d still be messed up.
It’s all gonna come back to 24 weeks.
Key question I been saying. When is it murder ?
That’s my opinion.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 06, 2021, 05:21:04 PM
But birth control is OK ?
Because we’re just getting rid of two halves of the human ?
Preemptive strike ?
Should jerking off be illegal?
You know those sperm. One had chance.
Also.
Welfare ? Starving ? No housing ? Abandoned to whoever ? Society pays for it ? Severely disabled , etc…..
Why is it societies choice?
.
Unfortunately this is obviously not one of those times and arguable on both sides.
Are they taking a “life”?
Back to square one if no religion is involved.
Science defines life. Much has changed since the 1970s.
We study single cell organisms and have no qualms about designating that as "life".
All children continue to develop after birth -- no one is ever born fully developed. So, why is a developing embryo any different? The DNA of an embryo is unique and distinct from the parents' and any other humans', so why is that not considered a living organism?
Arguments against religion are the crutch of people who don't believe in right or wrong -- just in their own wants and needs. If religion didn't exist, they'd find another way to attack people who judge their actions as wrong.
Post by: aieahound on September 06, 2021, 05:29:21 PM
When is it murder ?
Follows the logic.
Even the Texas law states at moment of fetal heartbeat.
Which can’t be 6 weeks as embryo has no cardiovascular system at that point.
Never mind civil lawsuits. Charge the doctor, nurses and formerly-pregnant woman with murder if it’s definitive.
Based on your logic.
You’ve said your crap, I said my crap.
Let others speak/post.
When is it murder ?
Should it be illegal before then ?
Illegal, not right or wrong in one persons view.
It’s all gonna go back to 24 weeks.
In my opinion.
When is it murder ?
Before murder, who has the Right to say shit.
Post by: omnigun on September 06, 2021, 07:10:29 PM
Science defines life. Much has changed since the 1970s.
We study single cell organisms and have no qualms about designating that as "life".
All children continue to develop after birth -- no one is ever born fully developed. So, why is a developing embryo any different? The DNA of an embryo is unique and distinct from the parents' and any other humans', so why is that not considered a living organism?
Arguments against religion are the crutch of people who don't believe in right or wrong -- just in their own wants and needs. If religion didn't exist, they'd find another way to attack people who judge their actions as wrong.
Let's pose it this way. Who's life is more important?
Post by: omnigun on September 06, 2021, 07:12:36 PM
yet you constantly post your views on abortion, church, freedom, politics, consensus, court of law
over and over and over and over and over
And have any of those that I say lessen your freedom unless it effects others freedoms? 🤔
Post by: macsak on September 06, 2021, 07:19:53 PM
And have any of those that I say lessen your freedom unless it effects others freedoms? 🤔
is that sentence in English?
Post by: aieahound on September 06, 2021, 07:24:43 PM
Instead of being an English professor, could you answer my question?
You’re a Dr.
( I gotta say that because my daughters in pharmacy school and I’ll apparently have to call her Dr. at graduation. Pharmacist Dentist same same. Still both Dr.s I say with respect.)
Or you can just delete this post.
To provocative.
(Did I use one too little bit o’s ? )
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 06, 2021, 07:40:03 PM
Science defines life. Much has changed since the 1970s.
We study single cell organisms and have no qualms about designating that as "life".
All children continue to develop after birth -- no one is ever born fully developed. So, why is a developing embryo any different? The DNA of an embryo is unique and distinct from the parents' and any other humans', so why is that not considered a living organism?
Arguments against religion are the crutch of people who don't believe in right or wrong -- just in their own wants and needs. If religion didn't exist, they'd find another way to attack people who judge their actions as wrong.
I think debating whether it is life is not really hitting the right note, the question should be whether it is life worth keeping/saving/protecting. We choose to allow loved ones to pull the plug on people who are completely brain dead so I think the question is whether the embryo at whatever number of weeks is a human life worth protecting is the right question, not simply whether it is alive.
And on the last note, there is an atheist pro-life group. People always want to resort to the angle of "you are forcing religion on me" but I rebut it by pointing at pro-life atheists and illustrating that being against abortion isn't a position inherent to religion.
Post by: aieahound on September 06, 2021, 07:44:01 PM
And if it’s not murder, what crime is being committed ?
Legally.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 06, 2021, 08:52:51 PM
I think debating whether it is life is not really hitting the right note, the question should be whether it is life worth keeping/saving/protecting. We choose to allow loved ones to pull the plug on people who are completely brain dead so I think the question is whether the embryo at whatever number of weeks is a human life worth protecting is the right question, not simply whether it is alive.
And on the last note, there is an atheist pro-life group. People always want to resort to the angle of "you are forcing religion on me" but I rebut it by pointing at pro-life atheists and illustrating that being against abortion isn't a position inherent to religion.
You really ought to go back and read the first 30-40 pages of this thread. Few arguments you can add will be something we haven't seen before.
The "what about coma patients" issue was discussed in-depth. The final thought I had was, "brain dead adults have an almost 0 chance of returning to a sentient state. An embryo that is developing normally has a nearly 100% chance of achieving that state." Present state is not the only factor. Have to consider predicted state if allowed to remain living.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 06, 2021, 08:57:02 PM
Let's pose it this way. Who's life is more important?
Be more specific. Whose lives are you talking about?
Post by: omnigun on September 06, 2021, 08:58:05 PM
Be more specific. Whose lives are you talking about?
The mother or the potential baby.
And for a bonus the father.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 06, 2021, 08:59:19 PM
The mother or the potential baby. And for a bonus the father.
Funny. I remember my mother and father both surviving my birth.
I was unaware having a child required a human sacrifice.
Post by: omnigun on September 06, 2021, 09:02:47 PM
Funny. I remember my mother and father both surviving my birth.
I was unaware having a child required a human sacrifice.
Lets be more specific. The mothers choice and potential harm. Having to carry the "child" for 9 months and give birth. Then spend X amount of time caring for said child. Or the child who has not yet formed yet.
AKA if the mother does not want the child do you force them to have it?
Or other scenarios a bit more spicy like if the child was a product of rape do you force the mother to live the rest of her life having that as a reminder.
Or what if giving birth could compromise the mothers life?
*bonus*
What say does the dad say?
Obviously we will never agree if its alive etc. But I want to see your views on freedoms and how its ranked.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 06, 2021, 09:09:49 PM
Lets be more specific. The mothers choice and potential harm. Having to carry the "child" for 9 months and give birth. Then spend X amount of time caring for said child. Or the child who has not yet formed yet.
AKA if the mother does not want the child do you force them to have it?
Or other scenarios a bit more spicy like if the child was a product of rape do you force the mother to live the rest of her life having that as a reminder.
Or what if giving birth could compromise the mothers life?
*bonus*
What say does the dad say?
Obviously we will never agree if its alive etc. But I want to see your views on freedoms and how its ranked.
Big difference between "doesn't want" and "potential harm."
Go back and re-read all the many pages that we created discussing "life of the mother vs. life of the child" scenarios.
Do you not retain information? Or do you only retain talking points to use to argue with anyone who dares to engage you?
Post by: aieahound on September 06, 2021, 09:41:27 PM
when is it murder ?
And if it’s not murder, what crime is being committed ?
Legally.
just answer the fawkin’ question.
Anyone, because that’s what we’re really talking about at this point.
In my opinion. (As Flapp noted. Seems like alll the other crap has been hashed out.)
P.S. and the answer is not sentience.
Is it 10 weeks + or - because the fetus has a cordiovascular system (and presumably heartbeat that works)?
Is it 24 weeks + or - because it’s viable outside outside the womb ?
Is it never ? (Because when it has one cell it could be life (science). Like my swimming sperm, which I hope had more than one cell. (At least they swam) Go back to birth control, pre-emptive strike, illegal jerking off comment)
How do you measure sentience ? Don’t answer. I’ll go back 40 pages. (That means you Umni. Start catching the drifts of a lot of prior posts in a lot of different threads.)
https://youtu.be/5V8RJpUb9HY
Post by: Brystont1 on September 06, 2021, 10:33:08 PM
just answer the fawkin’ question.
Anyone, because that’s what we’re really talking about at this point.
In my opinion. (As Flapp noted. Seems like alll the other crap has been hashed out.)
P.S. and the answer is not sentience.
Is it 10 weeks + or - because the fetus has a cordiovascular system (and presumably heartbeat that works)?
Is it 24 weeks + or - because it’s viable outside outside the womb ?
Is it never ? (Because when it has one cell it could be life (science). Like my swimming sperm, which I hope had more than one cell. (At least they swam) Go back to birth control, pre-emptive strike, illegal jerking off comment)
How do you measure sentience ? Don’t answer. I’ll go back 40 pages. (That means you Umni. Start catching the drifts of a lot of prior posts in a lot of different threads.)
https://youtu.be/5V8RJpUb9HY
Aiea, I think the question has been answered already.
If you believe it is a human being from the moment of conception (pro life) then that fetus has all the rights a newborn would have. If you rip apart a newborn (abortion) I would consider that murder. It’s the same for a fetus, at least from a pro life perspective.
As for your swimming sperm I don’t consider that a human being. Unless you can find me an example of a male that grows babies in his ball sack without needing a female egg I don’t consider it to be human. An unfertilized egg doesn’t grow into anything the same way sperm doesn’t.
Post by: aieahound on September 06, 2021, 10:36:56 PM
As for your swimming sperm I don’t consider that a human being. Unless you can find me an example of a male that grows babies in his ball sack without needing a female egg I don’t consider it to be human. An unfertilized egg doesn’t grow into anything the same way sperm doesn’t.
Science defines life. Much has changed since the 1970s.
We study single cell organisms and have no qualms about designating that as "life".
Gotta go back and read Flapp’s prior post.
Your sperm could be life as defined by science.
( Where’s the sarcasm emoji? )
Aiea, I think the question has been answered already.
If you believe it is a human being from the moment of conception (pro life) then that fetus has all the rights a newborn would have. If you rip apart a newborn (abortion) I would consider that murder. It’s the same for a fetus, at least from a pro life perspective.
I get what you’re saying but…..if you believe ?
That’s what I’m trying to get away from
Legally?
Where’s the bar?
And what makes it legal or illegal ?
Murder ?
When can you be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman ?
Shouldn’t it be the same standard ?
Just asking questions.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 06, 2021, 10:56:22 PM
That's 38/50 states that recognize an unborn child as "life" LEGALLY, or 2 shy of 4/5. 33 states out of 50 would be a super-majority in the context of Congressional votes.
30 states have no gestation limit on the protection. 8 have minimal gestation times for the law to apply. For example, CA law says:
Quote
“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.”
The words “or a fetus” were added by the legislature in 1970. The California Supreme
Court later interpreted “fetus” to apply “beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight
weeks.”
So, even CA (not a religious or Conservation state by any stretch) considers a 2-month-old fetus a person who qualifies for legal protection.
Of course, for all the times AHole demanded others answer the question, he could have just Googled it instead -- took 3 seconds.
https://www.nrlc.org/federal/unbornvictims/statehomicidelaws092302/
Post by: aieahound on September 06, 2021, 11:02:33 PM
How does that not follow logic ?
So charge them as such. (I mean the pregnant woman, doctor, nurses etc…)
Where’s the attorney’s ?
Oh, wait. Technicalities.
So why are there no technicalities on those murder laws ?
Or are there ?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 07, 2021, 12:02:03 AM
I’ve done no fact checking but if you can get charged for double homicide at conception then abortion after that point is murder.
How does that not follow logic ?
So charge them as such. (I mean the pregnant woman, doctor, nurses etc…)
Where’s the attorney’s ?
Oh, wait. Technicalities.
So why are there no technicalities on those murder laws ?
Or are there ?
After you lied about me, I'm not answering another comment from you.
#NotFeedingThisLyingTroll
#AskOmniHowToUseGoogle
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 06:58:03 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 07, 2021, 09:25:47 AM
I’ve done no fact checking but if you can get charged for double homicide at conception then abortion after that point is murder.
How does that not follow logic ?
So charge them as such. (I mean the pregnant woman, doctor, nurses etc…)
Where’s the attorney’s ?
Oh, wait. Technicalities.
So why are there no technicalities on those murder laws ?
Or are there ?
I think the diff between murder and not murder is context. A mother making the call or a robber shooting her stomach and killing the baby. A doctor getting permission from a family member to pull the plug vs. some crackhead going room to room pulling plugs. So to answer your question, IMO it's context. This isn't a perfect answer either, there really is no way to 100% define anything or make it ok. Each person has their own morals/ethics and they will have to live with the decision they make.
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 09:39:48 AM
I think the diff between murder and not murder is context. A mother making the call or a robber shooting her stomach and killing the baby. A doctor getting permission from a family member to pull the plug vs. some crackhead going room to room pulling plugs. So to answer your question, IMO it's context. This isn't a perfect answer either, there really is no way to 100% define anything or make it ok. Each person has their own morals/ethics and they will have to live with the decision they make.
Sometimes I guess I do agree with you. That's the whole idea of being pro-choice.
Post by: macsak on September 07, 2021, 11:22:56 AM
Sometimes I guess I do agree with you. That's the whole idea of being pro-choice.
you belive that pro-life people don't subscribe to that idea?
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 11:33:32 AM
you belive that pro-life people don't subscribe to that idea?
Yup. Not exactly a choice if your are forced to do something. You can believe it's alive, or it's not. Do what you gotta do to sleep at night. Why do you care about someone else? You can't catch babies, you don't gotta take care of them. It affects your life 0%. So you have no say.
Same to a father, he has no say in the women keeping or not keeping the baby. Though if the women goes against his wishes he should not be liable to take care of the child.
Post by: aieahound on September 07, 2021, 12:17:51 PM
After you lied about me, I'm not answering another comment from you.
Unfortunately the evidence got deleted by the mods.
You now have deniability.
But great result.
Post by: aieahound on September 07, 2021, 12:23:55 PM
Same to a father, he has no say in the women keeping or not keeping the baby. Though of the women goes against his wishes he should not be liable to take care of the child.
Interesting point.
If the father of the unborn is in favor of an abortion and the woman doesn’t get one should he have to pay child support ?
And I know nothing is 100% defined. But at some point it does turn into murder.
Legally, factually, not morally.
In my mind it’s dichotomous. Either totally illegal or legal to point of murder. (24 weeks.)
And any double homicide laws for pregnant mothers should reflect the same.
With all the exceptions for rape, molestation, health risk etc.
But then again absolute ban is moral/religious. Not science.
And in many peoples minds, allowing it is immoral.
Do miscarriages go to the after life ?
I don’t know.
It’s a wild topic.
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 01:21:18 PM
Interesting point.
If the father of the unborn is in favor of an abortion and the woman doesn’t get one should he have to pay child support ?
And I know nothing is 100% defined. But at some point it does turn into murder.
Legally, factually, not morally.
In my mind it’s dichotomous. Either totally illegal or legal to point of murder. (24 weeks.)
And any double homicide laws for pregnant mothers should reflect the same.
With all the exceptions for rape, molestation, health risk etc.
But then again absolute ban is moral/religious. Not science.
And in many peoples minds, allowing it is immoral.
Do miscarriages go to the after life ?
I don’t know.
It’s a wild topic.
We can make it simple, right now we hide behind the gray zone. Just need to make a new law. If it isn't functioning like a parasite its alive. I also agree, people should not be charged for double homicide. They could make a new law that if victims of crime belong to a special class they get longer sentences. For example pregnant females are more vulnerable. Crimes against the old/young etc. Similar like they have hate crime laws.
Also you bring an interesting point, if there are exemptions it really is about "morals/religious" if a rapist gets a 14yr old girl pregnant that baby is the "same" scientifically as 2 consenting adults creating a child.
Post by: Glasser on September 07, 2021, 03:44:52 PM
MSNBC’s Wallace: “Maybe Mueller will look into” whether Republican states are “colluding” with the Supreme Court against abortion
(https://c.tenor.com/WeLEkgAAL0IAAAAd/clown-world.gif)
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 04:28:12 PM
https://news.yahoo.com/mexico-supreme-court-rules-abortion-191835366.html
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 07, 2021, 04:32:17 PM
MFW mexico is more free than texas in this instance....
https://news.yahoo.com/mexico-supreme-court-rules-abortion-191835366.html
LOL! Whenever the Left wants something, it's about "FREEDOM!!"
When they want to oppose something, it's time to make it illegal, ban it, boycott it and "make their lives miserable."
"Freedom for me, but not for thee."
If you fall for these "Freedom" arguments, you're pretty stupid. They sure don't seem to care about the civil rights and freedoms of developing human beings.
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 04:47:13 PM
LOL! Whenever the Left wants something, it's about "FREEDOM!!"
When they want to oppose something, it's time to make it illegal, ban it, boycott it and "make their lives miserable."
"Freedom for me, but not for thee."
If you fall for these "Freedom" arguments, you're pretty stupid. They sure don't seem to care about the civil rights and freedoms of developing human beings.
Developing. Is the key word. You "develop" a meal. I don't see you eating raw steak cause it could become a meal. Or better yet you better be a vegan.
Also the freedom I am very clear. Been saying it thousands of times but apparently you dont get it . You can't have freedom if it affects others freedom. Can't force a mother to give birth.
Post by: drck1000 on September 07, 2021, 04:50:09 PM
/əˈnaləjē/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Philosophy
Logic
Linguistics
Biology
noun
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
Your analogies need some work. . . JMHO
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 07, 2021, 05:05:59 PM
a·nal·o·gyMany things of his need work.
/əˈnaləjē/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Philosophy
Logic
Linguistics
Biology
noun
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
Your analogies need some work. . . JMHO
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on September 07, 2021, 05:08:41 PM
Many things of his need work.Baby steps. Can't get to 3.7 in a day. . .
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Glasser on September 08, 2021, 11:20:49 AM
Massive earthquake hits Mexico on the day their Supreme Court decriminalized abortion
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1435686242939723776
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 02:09:24 PM
Your analogies need some work. . . JMHO
Calling the comparisons he posts "analogies" is being generous.
His main reason for posting so many bad analogies is he doesn't understand the subject at all, much less enough to lecture on it. You can't easily compare/contrast one thing with another unless you already understand the first thing.
(https://i.imgur.com/EHLKlJ9.jpg)
Post by: drck1000 on September 08, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Calling the comparisons he posts "analogies" is being generous.There you go, being all rational. . . ::)
His main reason for posting so many bad analogies is he doesn't understand the subject at all, much less enough to lecture on it. You can't easily compare/contrast one thing with another unless you already understand the first thing.
SNIP
hehe
:rofl:
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 04:15:09 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 08, 2021, 04:32:20 PM
Calling the comparisons he posts "analogies" is being generous.
His main reason for posting so many bad analogies is he doesn't understand the subject at all, much less enough to lecture on it. You can't easily compare/contrast one thing with another unless you already understand the first thing.
(https://i.imgur.com/EHLKlJ9.jpg)
And so he can move goal post later one.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 04:49:34 PM
Obviously everyone here gets their meals magically pre done. There's no process, like a childbirth. No animals or plants raised for the potential. No food cooked. Meh
When you're able to create a living human in your microwave, let us know. Otherwise, just another bad analogy.
Not all food needs cooking or cultivating. Ever hear of hunting and gathering? Eating off the land? Is seafood cooked in all countries?
Your analogy has more holes than your head -- which says a lot!
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 04:50:12 PM
Why do you have no arguments other than "If every other nation is willing to jump off a building, then we should, too?"
How do you know the religious beliefs of the bills authors? You know them all personally?
Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and a self-affirmed Catholic -- as are many Democrats in Congress -- as is Joe Biden.
You seem to be a mindreader, able to pick out which official actions are based on religion, and which are not. I know I've heard Pelosi invoke her religious beliefs on occasion to rationalize her decisions. Haven't heard anyone (you) complain yet.
Seems religion is fine until a law is passed you don't agree with -- then you cry "pushing their religious beliefs!" Grow up. There will always be an overlap between Christian and other religious teachings with people's jobs. You can't sterilize the government of religious teachings and values any more than you can rid it of Socialism or Liberalism. Ideologies exist. Unless the law is demonstrably about religion, you have no legal basis to argue.
Interesting the topics collide again. (From Religion thread)
What is the legal basis for banning abortion?
Back to square one.
Moral or ending a life ?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 04:51:23 PM
Interesting the topics collide again.
What is the legal basis for banning abortion?
#FAKE NEWS
Who banned abortions?
Nobody.
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 05:01:06 PM
Like is frequently said here.
Learn to read.
And did you check the poll at the top of thread ?
Members have opinions on this.
Can’t google that stuff. I know it puts you at a disadvantage.
P.S.
and if you folks hate this derailment on and on crap between Flapp and me, think about the endless replies to Umni.
And stupid shit like commenting on his education, lack of logic and research, GPA and spelling and grammar.
As Flapp likes to flout, and then hypcrotize,” but adds nothing to the conversation. “ ( that’s a paraphrase cause he’ll to go those exact words)
Although most of you gotta admit, I’m kinda on point. (Not Flapp of course. He won’t admit anything. Deflect and insult.)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 05:21:18 PM
Who’d I say banned abortions ?
Maybe you need to read what you posted:
Interesting the topics collide again. (From Religion thread)
What is the legal basis for banning abortion?
Why ask a question about the legal basis for banning abortions if nobody is doing it? Just a straw argument?
Either you think someone (TX?) banned abortions, or you're just trolling to start arguments.
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 05:27:13 PM
Maybe you need to read what you posted:
Why ask a question about the legal basis for banning abortions if nobody is doing it? Just a straw argument?
Either you think someone (TX?) banned abortions, or you're just trolling to start arguments.
And there is no gun "control" with that logic. Its a defacto ban. That would be like if Hawaii introduced a civil law that anyone can sue for 10k if you own ammo. Flapp: "I swear guys its not banned" its not illegal. Or better yet cause you bitch and moan about analogies. In Hawaii you can conceal carry. Its legally allowed just need to get a permit.
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 05:32:52 PM
Maybe you need to read what you posted:
I did. You should
Why ask a question about the legal basis for banning abortions if nobody is doing it? Just a straw argument?
Either you think someone (TX?) banned abortions, or you're just trolling to start arguments.
How the Fawk is that trolling ?
How is it even arguing ?
Poll above.
We got over 55% saying never or or only in cases of incest or rape.
If you can’t discuss stuff, just leave the conversation.
And just for you I’ll change the question so you’re head doesn’t explode.
If it’s not illegal, at what point does it become illegal ?
6 weeks when there’s a perceived heart heart but no cardiovascular system and most women don’t even know their pregnant ?
10 weeks when cardiovascular system starts to develop ?
24 weeks when it’s viable outside the womb (with intense medical care)?
Until the date of birth when you smother it with a pillow ? (That was just for emphasis)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 05:33:56 PM
And there is no gun "control" with that logic. Its a defacto ban. That would be like if Hawaii introduced a civil law that anyone can sue for 10k if you own ammo. Flapp: "I swear guys its not banned" its not illegal. Or better yet cause you bitch and moan about analogies. In Hawaii you can conceal carry. Its legally allowed just need to get a permit.
LOL! Now you're tag teaming me again!
That's so special...Bless your hearts. :geekdanc:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 05:35:46 PM
Poll above.
We got over 55% saying never or or only in cases of incest or rape.
If you can’t discuss stuff, just leave the conversation.
And just for you I’ll change the question so you’re head doesn’t explode.
If it’s not illegal, at what point does it become illegal ?
6 weeks when there’s a perceived heart heart but no cardiovascular system and most women don’t even know their pregnant ?
10 weeks when cardiovascular system starts to develop ?
24 weeks when it’s viable outside the womb (with intense medical care)?
Until the date of birth when you smother it with a pillow ? (That was just for emphasis)
So a poll is now a ban? Since when? Oh ... since you needed something to prop up your straw argument. LOL!!
One
More
Time ....
Who is BANNING ABORTIONS?
ANSWER THE FAWKING QUESTION!! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 05:37:21 PM
I answered it if you read.
And never said it in the first place…if you read.
Divert and insult.
The classic retreat move of our four named member.
Now can you answer a direct question?
They seem to elude you.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 05:40:19 PM
No one.
I answered it if you read.
And never said it in the first place…if you read.
Divert and insult.
The classic retreat move of our four named member.
Now can you answer a direct question?
They seem to elude you.
So, what was the premise for asking "What is the legal basis for banning abortion?"
Or, are you just trolling?
Next, just try asking, "Can I keep a unicorn at my house if it's not zoned for livestock?"
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 05:48:36 PM
So, what was the premise for asking "What is the legal basis for banning abortion?"
Or, are you just trolling?
Next, just try asking, "Can I keep a unicorn at my house if it's not zoned for livestock?"
Topic was abortion. Sorry. That must have been confusing.
Was that a goal post you moved ?
Are you desperate for attention?
And thank you for illustrating my point.
I know it’s frustrating when you can’t google it.
And if I found a unicorn, I don’t think I’d keep it. My yard is too small.
Unless it followed me home.
Just another bad analogy.Can you spell hypocrite ?
Your analogy has more holes than your head -- which says a lot!
Now can you answer a direct question?
They seem to elude you.
Apparently you cannot.
Keeping your streak alive though. Something to be proud of ?
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 06:28:35 PM
What is the legal basis for banning abortion ?
And
If it’s not illegal, at what point does it become illegal ?
Point of conception?
6 weeks when there’s a perceived heart beat but no cardiovascular system and most women don’t even know their pregnant ?(that became an OpEd because I threw in the last part. )
10 weeks when cardiovascular system starts to develop ?
24 weeks when it’s viable outside the womb (with intense medical care)?
Until the date of birth when you smother it with a pillow ? (That was just for emphasis)
Post by: Glasser on September 08, 2021, 07:08:29 PM
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 07:17:39 PM
I’m not saying it’s an authorative.
Post by: Glasser on September 08, 2021, 07:30:09 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/08/heres-your-guide-to-whats-going-on-with-texass-baby-saving-heartbeat-law/
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 08:59:51 PM
:wtf: Is that?
End around?
Sure spun the Supreme Courts head.
Tip of the cap to the attorney that thought it up.
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 10:34:50 PM
I find it pretty ironic that Liberal J-Offs say they are Vegan because they dont want to kill anything with a face, but have no problem aborting a fetus who gets its 'face' at 8 weeks.
A face only you/your mother could love :shaka: :rofl:
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 10:36:33 PM
LOL! Now you're tag teaming me again!
That's so special...Bless your hearts. :geekdanc:
Can't admit when he is wrong so he deflects like a baws
Post by: aletheuo137 on September 09, 2021, 04:36:25 AM
https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20210908/abortion-activists
It's not like they didn't see it coming. Texas's new law protecting unborn babies where a heartbeat is detected (SB8) was passed in May, and Democrats "were asleep at the wheel," said Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. When the law went into effect last Wednesday, "suddenly everyone woke up."
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 09, 2021, 04:52:47 AM
Abortion Activists Slow on the Draw
https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20210908/abortion-activists
It's not like they didn't see it coming. Texas's new law protecting unborn babies where a heartbeat is detected (SB8) was passed in May, and Democrats "were asleep at the wheel," said Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. When the law went into effect last Wednesday, "suddenly everyone woke up."
The Dems in the TX Legislature were more interested in flying to DC and subverting the democratic process so they could block passage of election integrity laws.
Their priority was trying to ensure the election system remained susceptible to the same illegal BS we saw happening in swing states last year.
Post by: macsak on September 09, 2021, 06:21:25 AM
Can't admit when he is wrong so he deflects like a baws
goalposts moved from pot to kettle
Post by: omnigun on September 09, 2021, 07:02:32 AM
goalposts moved from pot to kettle
X2
Post by: Glasser on September 09, 2021, 07:35:10 AM
Indiana reinstates harsh abortion restrictions in state after ruling from federal appeals court
Post by: drck1000 on September 09, 2021, 07:39:33 AM
I find it pretty ironic that Liberal J-Offs say they are Vegan because they dont want to kill anything with a face, but have no problem aborting a fetus who gets its 'face' at 8 weeks.Sliding moral scale. What is right/wrong shifting depending on imposing on others or them, especially when driven by feelings. Sound familiar?
Post by: omnigun on September 09, 2021, 07:40:52 AM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9974215/Appeals-court-restores-Indiana-abortion-restrictions.html
Indiana reinstates harsh abortion restrictions in state after ruling from federal appeals court
Another shitty state. Stabbing themselves in the foot. All those abortion wanters might turn to more democrat voters and so will their unwanted children.
Post by: omnigun on September 10, 2021, 04:18:22 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 10, 2021, 04:48:43 PM
Another shitty state. Stabbing themselves in the foot. All those abortion wanters might turn to more democrat voters and so will their unwanted children.
Who says "stabbing themselves in the foot?"
:wacko:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 10, 2021, 04:52:38 PM
(https://preview.redd.it/8vuc8sjntqm71.jpg?width=640&height=413&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=aa0460b033ec05b4bd9d6fe9a47e7504956527ee)
Imagine being denied your right to life because of your mother's refusal to accept her responsibility for getting pregnant.
She didn't just accidentally trip on the sidewalk and fall repeatedly on some guy's penis. She made a choice.
Choices have consequences, and in MOST CASES, having a child is a good thing, not a punishment.
Post by: Waverider82 on September 10, 2021, 04:53:19 PM
(https://preview.redd.it/8vuc8sjntqm71.jpg?width=640&height=413&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=aa0460b033ec05b4bd9d6fe9a47e7504956527ee)
If you don't choose pregnancy, then choose a rubber. Simple. - With regards, your Unko
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 10, 2021, 04:57:07 PM
Imagine being denied your right to life because of your mother's refusal to accept her responsibility for getting pregnant.Wait, wait, wait. I knew a few girls who "slipped and fell on my dick".
She didn't just accidentally trip on the sidewalk and fall repeatedly on some guy's penis. She made a choice.
Choices have consequences, and in MOST CASES, having a child is a good thing, not a punishment.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 10, 2021, 05:04:18 PM
Wait, wait, wait. I knew a few girls who "slipped and fell on my dick".
That happens when they're wearing blindfolds. :geekdanc:
Post by: omnigun on September 10, 2021, 06:06:10 PM
If you don't choose pregnancy, then choose a rubber. Simple. - With regards, your Unko
Mistakes happen.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 10, 2021, 06:22:19 PM
Mistakes happen.
Difference between "accidental pregnancy" and "negligent pregnancy."
Few are actual accidents. Most could have been prevented.
Post by: omnigun on September 10, 2021, 06:57:18 PM
Difference between "accidental pregnancy" and "negligent pregnancy."
Few are actual accidents. Most could have been prevented.
Accidents are accidents. Even changing your mind is ok. If you are not ready, you are not ready.
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 07:41:38 PM
I have no party lines. I don't belong to either and don't like either quite frankly. My morals are based on science. I value freedoms that don't affect others. You don't have the right to harm others.
When is a an embryo/fetus/baby an other?
Not sentience.
Not many members have answered.
Post by: omnigun on September 10, 2021, 08:59:22 PM
When is a an embryo/fetus/baby an other?
Not sentience.
Not many members have answered.
To some here it's an other if it was a product of rape or something bad. If not 100% human at conception.
:rofl:
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 10:41:56 PM
Arguable.
It’s replicating cells and clearly life.
Or getting ready to anyway.
It’s is an other when it’s an other.
Objectively.
Product of….that’s almost a whole conversation in itself.
I’m a 24 week supporter.
(Not necessarily believer. )
Talked to a bunch of women and my wife. They feel pretty strongly about this.
If Mom’s willing to kill it ?
Viable outside the womb. Too far though.
In my opinion.
Post by: Brystont1 on September 10, 2021, 10:57:39 PM
Day 2.
Arguable.
It’s replicating cells and clearly life.
Or getting ready to anyway.
It’s is an other when it’s an other.
Objectively.
Product of….that’s almost a whole conversation in itself.
I’m a 24 week supporter.
(Not necessarily believer. )
Talked to a bunch of women and my wife. They feel pretty strongly about this.
If Mom’s willing to kill it ?
Viable outside the womb. Too far though.
In my opinion.
Why 24 weeks? What is the difference logically between 24 weeks and 24 weeks + one day?
If you support abortion you should support it up to birth. It is the only logically consistent argument for the pro choice my body my choice crowd.
Every argument that can be made for abortion can be made for my 9 month old daughter. She’s not able to survive on her own, she cost a lot, maybe I realized I wasn’t ready for a child, she’s still not fully “developed”, etc.
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 11:02:34 PM
2 week graced period for + or - (From what I’ve read)
Once you’re viable, or get chance, you’re an other.
No longer my body
In my opinion.
Edit:
Edited response before I knew Bryson posted below.
No substantive changes though.
Post by: Brystont1 on September 10, 2021, 11:10:48 PM
24 weeks because that’s two weeks after they’ve determined some are viable outside the womb.
Grace period. (From what I’ve read)
Once you’re viable, or get chance, you’re an other.
In my opinion.
That’s interesting, I can see the logic in it however for me it just brings me back the the brain dead coma patient argument. I don’t really wanna do that. What is interesting about the “viability” argument is what happens when technology improves so much that the viability of a fetus becomes earlier and earlier?
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 11:17:08 PM
I’m trying to view this from a legal sense.
Moral. Everybody has their opinion.
Legal. Gets interesting and debatable.
Can you kill a potential kid ?
When can you kill a potential kid ?
When is it a kid ?
Can you kill a kid?
Post by: Brystont1 on September 10, 2021, 11:23:06 PM
Then they gotta keep changing the law.
I’m trying to view this from a legal sense.
Moral. Everybody has their opinion.
Legal. Gets interesting and debatable.
Im not that smart lol so I’m having a difficult time understanding what you mean by legal? What is a legal argument for abortion?
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 11:27:05 PM
I can’t explain it the thing is complex. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Somebody.
What’s the argument against it ?
Murder?
Post by: Brystont1 on September 10, 2021, 11:30:16 PM
Good question.
I can’t explain it the thing is complex. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Somebody.
What’s the argument against it ?
Murder?
Ahh I think I understand. Instead of debating whether it’s right or wrong (morality) you want to know what the mother should be charged legally if she had an abortion?
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 11:34:21 PM
Because it’s either murder or nothing.
Way I see it.
when is it murder ?
Post by: drck1000 on September 14, 2021, 08:28:51 PM
Bruh
Post by: omnigun on October 15, 2021, 05:34:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feIIxd0eWkg
Post by: aletheuo137 on October 20, 2021, 06:46:13 AM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/bidens-doj-requests-supreme-court-block-texas-heartbeat-act-despite-refusal-intervene-last-month/
The Department of Justice has requested that the Supreme Court block the Texas ‘Heartbeat Act,’ even though the high court opted not to intervene just last month.
The Texas law prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is typically around six weeks.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on October 20, 2021, 06:48:49 AM
Biden’s DOJ Requests Supreme Court Block Texas Heartbeat Act, Despite Their Refusal to Intervene Last Month
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/bidens-doj-requests-supreme-court-block-texas-heartbeat-act-despite-refusal-intervene-last-month/
The Department of Justice has requested that the Supreme Court block the Texas ‘Heartbeat Act,’ even though the high court opted not to intervene just last month.
The Texas law prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is typically around six weeks.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Block that shit :shaka:
6 weeks isn't enough to even know you are pregnant most of the time.
Post by: aletheuo137 on October 20, 2021, 09:46:49 AM
https://youtu.be/SK2_-VpzVl4
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on October 20, 2021, 10:05:26 AM
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/kamala-harris-accused-colluding-abortion-provider-while-ag-california
President Kamala Harris was Attorney General of California, her office worked in tandem with abortion providers in order to pursue a criminal case against a pro-life journalist, attorneys for the journalist claimed.
Harris was California's attorney general when she prosecuted journalist David Daleiden for allegedly violating a state eavesdropping law, according to reports.
Daleiden had obtained an unauthorized undercover video of a Planned Parenthood clinic, which Harris's office said was in violation of state law.
Attorneys for Daleiden claim that Harris' Deputy Attorney General Johnette Jauron abused her power by providing the National Abortion Federation with a copy of the video, despite it being obtained as evidence during a 2016 raid. During this time, NAF was involved in litigation with Daleiden.
Harris' office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A judge in May asked Jauron about the evidence, and whether she gave it to NAF.
Jauron responded by saying that she provided the organization with the same evidence she provided to Daleiden.
Daleiden's attorneys argue that Jauron's statement implies that she gave the abortion advocacy group more than just the footage it had requested.
Critics of Harris claim her office pursued the criminal case against Daleiden because it was politically advantageous.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on October 22, 2021, 11:13:51 AM
https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-announces-53160/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=922
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to a controversial Texas abortion law, the high court announced on Friday, making it the third abortion-related case justices will hear in their current term.
“The high court will now officially hear three major abortion cases this term: Two on Texas and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to a Mississippi law that bans nearly all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy,” Axios reported.
In briefs filed before the nation’s highest court, Texas officials argued that justices should reconsider the legality and constitutionality of the highly debated Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 in which the Supreme Court at the time struck down laws against abortion in all 50 states.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on October 30, 2021, 02:55:50 PM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/abortions-drop-thousands-texas-heartbeat-bill-ghoulish-liberals-call-devastating/
According to a new study, Abortions dropped by 50% in Texas in the month after the heartbeat bill was passed.
In August, 5,377 legal abortions were performed in Texas.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on October 30, 2021, 03:12:07 PM
Abortions Drop By The Thousands After Texas Heartbeat Bill — Ghoulish Liberals Call It “Devastating”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/abortions-drop-thousands-texas-heartbeat-bill-ghoulish-liberals-call-devastating/
According to a new study, Abortions dropped by 50% in Texas in the month after the heartbeat bill was passed.
In August, 5,377 legal abortions were performed in Texas.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
This just in, when you threaten people. They start to not to the thing you are threatening them about.