Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
You are not addressing that we could easily save over 96 percent of babies which are currently being aborted. At this point, I could make a few exceptions, like I said, not for me but for others.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Real Reason Trump Won
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
That's accurate.
I'm addressing the 4% you would allow to be aborted.
And the argument that they have no right to life.
Or perhaps that they have the right to life, but
it's not protected because they're few in number.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
You're ignoring the 97 percent (I believe that only at the most 3 percent of abortions are for rape or incest).
Correct.
Now it's 3%, but the question remains
why those fetuses lost their right to life?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Sigh. I have already answered this. I am not going to play your game.
I was waiting for you to say you already answered it.
So we'll never know your answer.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Oh you know it but it isn't the one you wanted me to say so you kept on asking it. But I don't care enough to argue with you.
If I did, I wouldn't press you for answers.
But you care enuf to meta-argue.
What I've discerned so far from your posts is
that a fetus at every stage has the right to life,
same as a baby....unless borne of rape or incest,
in which case the fetus may be murdered, but
not the baby.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Reread post #277. There's my answer.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Thanks. I answered it till I was blue in the face. I am done. Oh and this is the second thread I've gone round and round with you on the very same topic.
If ever you showed both clarity & candor,
it would go much faster & easier for you.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This is rude and demeaning to women, trans people and "lefties."Are we talking about the same thing?
What evidence do you have to compare Trump with Hitler?
Do you have evidence to show Trump's supporters are garbage?
We were talking about whether or not both sides were talking junk (trash). The answer is - they were!
Simplistic?
The way the two sides have drifted apart these days - sometimes it helps to figure out 'tolerance' levels before making a final decision. You have to figure out the 'middle ground'.
Everything has to come out from the 'House' before a President can sign it.
In the past - you could invite the opposition and have a discussion over coffee/tea but these days - they hate each other's guts. So Trump found a new way to find the middle ground.
Ingenious!
Stop right there! Are you writing from a cruise ship?
Your perception is your reality; it doesn't represent the truth.
Policies? The 'Left' leaning policies are insane but let's just briefly talk about "ramifications". I mean ramification of Biden's policies (or lack of it) to be specific.
Lefties (specifically) during the last few years have destroyed the definition of "woman". They took a clear digital image and turned it into a blurred abstract art.
The lefties tried to project that they are about 'equality' but in fact they don't represent the levelheaded majority of the women who want their identity protected, who want men (claiming to be a woman) out of their sports.
With the progression of science - it seems - you could have as many genders as you like but leave the ones already defined from the beginning of time. Go do surgeries and turn yourself into a half horse half human but have the decency to call yourself a 'Centaur'. Don't call yourself a woman and ruin it for the actual biological woman. Don't spoil their chance to have a fair competition among each other.
Lefties claim to be about 'equality' but they don't include the ones not on board with them or their agendas. As a matter of fact - they trash them!
Wanna talk about 'ramifications' of 'Green' policies?
Well let me keep it as brief as possible...
You will buy windmills and batteries from China until you are broke and try to go 'green' BUT China and India will never stop polluting the environment. You can never clean anything from one side. Might as well spend your money on planetary science and find another planet.
First figure out how to make China, India and other 3rd world nations to comply.
No inspectors from WHO were allowed into China to inspect Wuhan lab. Do you expect EPA/OIG inspectors will ever be allowed in China to conduct on-site inspections in any meaningful capacity?
I would say - wake up and smell the coffee but you are not sleeping. You are wide awake but smoking ***
'Inaction' can be worse than any of the so-called 'ramifications' you may be talking about.
Biden slept at the helm and as a result innocent civilians in the thousands died. 40,000 thousand here and 40,000 there and another bigger number there. These numbers mean anything to the Dems?
Do you not see the evidence of how bad the policies of the 'blind and silent' observer look like? They are blind or simply given a blind eye while atrocities took place.
There is nothing called a bystander when you have the power and influence to intervene and save innocent children from being blown into pieces but you don't do anything significant enough to stop it
I can understand - you can't stop a one day savage attack but months and months of systematic killings? Give me a break! Biden will not be a happy man on Judgment Day. I know he probably believes his sins will be forgiven.
When you sell your soul and dedicate your life to fight for one single cause - you block out everything else. Some Dems are fighting for their specific rights (pro-choice, LGBTQIA+ rights, black live, environment, etc. etc.).
Dems are not politics-as-usual as you put it. Dems are - "join us or you are X-Y-Z".
Dems are a bunch of dishonest folks who don't realize when they call their opponents names.
Where did I call anyone "social outcasts and haters"?
I pointed out one side primarily consists of folks who are fighting for their own interests. I didn't characterize them into anything other than maybe being selfish. There are more important things to fight for - like the economy, stop the conflicts around the world that can really spiral out of control. One Ukrainian fighter jet pilot (on a suicide mission because his children were killed by a Russian drone) can start a nuclear war!!!!
Worry about that!
Are you talking about Trump or all from the 'Right'?
If you are talking in regards to Trump - then don't believe everything you hear because the historians, academics and the intellectuals who understand Trump are not vocal enough due to the backlash they could receive from the loony lefties. Yeah! Those - single agenda pusher!
So, the voice you hear from the so-called historians, academics and intellectuals is biased.
Years from now when Trump is done with his four years at the office - those other impartial historians (who are silent right now) will point out how stupid and biased the other ones were.
Wait for the final picture!
At this point - all I could tell you is...
Continue worrying but tone down your rhetoric a bit and tell your likeminded folks to do the same because all you guys are doing is making a lot of noise - "hees & haws (bray).
We were talking about the real reason Trump won, Remember?
And one reason why Trump won was...
The folks in the middle had enough. Dems tried to re-define what a woman is. They went overboard.
Now swim to the shore and figure out another way to fool everyday Americans.
I responded to almost every sentence you wrote. I know I didn't make a dent. Hopefully someone in the middle will agree otherwise it was a waste of time. Maybe you will agree with that!
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What was described there is definitely a real situation. People need organ transplants all the time.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You're ignoring the question (again).
It's real.
Patients die waiting for organs.
Willing to answer his question now?
Wirey
Fartist
So, no answer despite your earlier statement that you answered?
If a woman wants an abortion, there's a huge chance that not getting one will harm her. Depression, suicide, poverty, loss of opportunity, and a million more things will land on her. The child, too, gets a wonderful life. Drunk poor mommy doesn't love it, in fact resents it's existence, so it's bound to grow up to be a wonderful member of society.
In the Freakanomics books, it was pointed out that the violent crime rate in the US began to spike in the 1980s. There was a genuine concern that the world was going to soon see essentially super-criminals. Remember all the apocalyptic movies in the 80s like The Warriors, and Escape from New York? They were spawned by that movement toward more and more criminals. And then, in the early 90s, the crime rate dropped way down in a very short amount of time. The reason? The unwanted, unloved children I posited above stopped being born because Roe vs. Wade gave moms who didn't want to be moms a way to get out. Horrifying damaged people who learned to hate from parents who didn't want them started to disappear, making society itself safer. Everyone, every single member of society, has a better world when abortion is available. The largest benefactor? The mom-who-ain't-a-mom-type. Why would anyone wish that kind of existence on anyone else?
So, as to my original point, forcing my mother to harm herself, regardless of the mechanism, is evil, plain and simple. A person who would doom this women to a life she doesn't want, and a child who will grow up poor, and more likely to fail at life than a child who is wanted, is a person who is acting on bad information.
If a woman, any woman, wants an abortion, she should have that option available to her, both for her own good, and the good of a child who's life will be brutishly difficult and come to no good.
And you're not addressing that the vast majority of those abortions could be prevented without infringing on anyone's rights.
I think it's only fair to point out that this isn't the only explanation for the trend they noted. A lot of other things were happening around the same time (e.g. heavy restrictions on environmental lead). It's impossible to say exactly what Roe v. Wade's impact was.
... though I guess we're now running a social experiment in the other direction, so 20 years after the Dobbs ruling, maybe we'll have a better sense of the impact of abortion laws specifically.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Oh I agree but I am not going there.