The fundamental deception behind the ‘pro-life’ movement

[AUFAN78 3,911]

7 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

finding it perfectly acceptable to have frequent school shootings and children killed

Who said that? Provide specific names. 

7 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

conservatives will just say "Sad...what can you do?  

Who said that? Again, specific names. 

It all sounds like your typical embellishment. You are not outraged or at least don't discuss mass slayings in our inner cities, where the majority of gun crimes take place, only schools. Furthermore, you seem not the least perturbed by the hundreds of thousands of deaths via abortion. So do you really care about deaths or just selected deaths?

The Gun Violence Archives show 19,035 deaths by homicide in 2021. The CDC states roughly 630,000 (reported) abortions in 2019.  Statista reports: As of September 2021, there were 170 school shootings in total in the United States. This was the highest number of school shootings since 1970. Of these incidents, only six were active shooter incidents. The largest number of active shooter incidents in schools was in 2018, with 11 active shooters.

None of these statistics are good and some common sense measures should be applied, but I find it a bit rich to discuss school shootings and brush aside the other categories. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

46 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I didn’t think I needed to spell it out to you that I don’t literally mean it’s limited to hunting.

Don't make blanket statements then blame others for believing you.  You literally said, "Most of the countries that he is trying to compare the US to that have such low rates practically have gun laws that are so restrictive that unless you have provided proof that it is for hunting purposes or some other dire need (that usually aren't approved) you essentially can't own one." 

Neither the hunting comment nor the bolded one are remotely true.

 

 

Quote

These countries make it way more difficult (good or bad isn’t the point here) to have a gun. Also, the reason Canada and Norway has high rates of ownership is for protection living in such primitive areas. 

Then in future, if you just mean "more difficult to have a gun" don't say that it's basically impossible to own one.  Those are not the same thing.

And no, that list doesn't prove your point.  Some are more restrictive than others but none of the ones I listed make it very difficult.  More difficult or having more requirements than the US?  Sure.  But multiple ones on that list don't make it that hard at all, France and Switzerland topping that list.

 

Quote

So which is it? Do we need massively more restricted laws? 

Massively?  Not necessarily?  More restrictions or requirements than we currently have?  Perhaps.

 

Quote

Or perhaps the countries that high ownership rates and low homicide rates have other safety nets in the social system such as proper mental health care? If Switzerland has laws close to the us, logic suggests they should have a high homicide rate as well. 

I don't disagree.  But generally, the Venn diagram of people utilizing arguments like this who at the same time vote down any politician or ballot initiative that expands social safety nets or funding for mental health care is almost a perfect circle.

 

Quote

People on the left are quick to try to blame it all on the guns or lack of laws in the US, but in reality the focus should be on things such as mental health, enforcing the laws we already have. 

Or maybe you attack the problem from both sides because the two things aren't mutually exclusive.  Maybe we acknowledge that our gun laws are too lax in some ways AND we improve mental health care.  For instance, apparently in Michigan there is no state law requiring firearms to be stored and locked in homes where minors are present, so the parents might not be able to be charged with anything, even though it appears they did nothing to prevent a 15 year old with behavioral problems from getting it.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Don't make blanket statements then blame others for believing you.  You literally said, "

Most of the countries that he is trying to compare the US to that have such low rates practically have gun laws that are so restrictive that unless you have provided proof that it is for hunting purposes or some other dire need (that usually aren't approved) you essentially can't own one." 

Neither the hunting comment nor the bolded one are remotely true.

 

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Then in future, if you just mean "more difficult to have a gun" don't say that it's basically impossible to own one.  Those are not the same thing.

Not sure why you are getting so twisted over the wording I used to make a point. 

 

47 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't disagree.  But generally, the Venn diagram of people utilizing arguments like this who at the same time vote down any politician or ballot initiative that expands social safety nets or funding for mental health care is almost a perfect circle.

Perhaps that is because both sides really have no desire to solve the problem.

 

51 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Or maybe you attack the problem from both sides because the two things aren't mutually exclusive.  Maybe we acknowledge that our gun laws are too lax in some ways AND we improve mental health care.

Well, yeah that's a given...........but refer to my statement above. 

[homersapien 11,386]

7 hours ago, WalkingCarpet said:

"This is about controlling women, not about innocent life."

I can't take anyone seriously who says this. A 30 second conversation with anyone who is pro-life will tell you it's nonsense. It also discounts the tens of millions of women who are pro-life. Oh wait, Jen Rubin wrote this crap. Not surprising. 

Doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks about it. That's effectively what it is.

[WalkingCarpet 1,379]

58 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks about it. That's effectively what it is.

It's pathetic that you and grifter trash like Jen Rubin have to outright lie about what other people will freely tell you they believe. Trying to argue semantics and stretch the definition of the word "control" to hilarious places is all you've got. 

[homersapien 11,386]

1 hour ago, WalkingCarpet said:

It's pathetic that you and grifter trash like Jen Rubin have to outright lie about what other people will freely tell you they believe. Trying to argue semantics and stretch the definition of the word "control" to hilarious places is all you've got. 

No, what's pathetic is refusal to acknowledge the obvious. 

Taking away a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body is assuming control over her, by definition.

That's not semantics, that's simple logic and common sense - attributes you apparently lack.

Edited December 3, 2021 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, what's pathetic is refusal to acknowledge the obvious. 

Taking away a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body is assuming control over her, by definition.

That's not semantics, that's simple logic and common sense - attributes you apparently lack.

Agreed, and very similar to the control Biden is trying to assume over people. His attempt at mandates was him taking away a person’s right to make their own decisions about their own body. 
 

It’s the exact same thing when you break it down. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

 

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

 

Not sure why you are getting so twisted over the wording I used to make a point. 

translation: "How dare you use the words I write against me in my own argument."

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

 

Perhaps that is because both sides really have no desire to solve the problem.

 

Well, yeah that's a given...........but refer to my statement above. 

 

How is it "both sides" fault when Republicans are the primary antagonist against both gun control/regulation laws AND additional social programs and safety nets. 

I'm not saying Democrats have all the answers, and that their ideas will instantly fix the problem, but you're taking two solutions, both things that Republicans typically oppose and vote against", and you're saying that it's both sides fault that progress doesn't happen. 

I don't really understand your logic on this one. 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,386]

3 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Agreed, and very similar to the control Biden is trying to assume over people. His attempt at mandates was him taking away a person’s right to make their own decisions about their own body. 
 

It’s the exact same thing when you break it down. 

Well, the basic concept of having personal control over your own body is the same, but there are many other considerations that differentiate the two issues, such as public health (i.e.: the direct impact your decision has on everyone you contact). 

And it's not like anyone is being arrested for violating the vaccination mandate "law" (is it even a law?)

But to your point, I have come to oppose vaccine "mandates", purely for political reasons. 

Even though it's scientifically sound, it is counter-productive politically.   I think more people would get vaccinated if there weren't a "mandate" to do so. (Americans are funny that way.) 

Again, "mandate" is in quotes because no one is being arrested for not complying, whereas, there's actually a bounty in Texas for arresting women who seek an abortion.

As far as covid vaccinations are concerned, I am putting faith in my own decision to get vaccinated early and often.  As long as I survive the pandemic, I don't give a s*** if the people who refuse vaccination die as a result of their choice. 

So, while the basic right of personal autonomy is the same in both cases, the stakes and consequences differ, keeping them from being "exactly" the same.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,386]

Taking a more practical perspective:

The number of abortions in this country was dropping.  They would likely drop further if we enacted legislation such as paid family leave and child care, which Republicans universally oppose. 

So do Republicans really care about reducing abortions or are they simply politically pandering by restricting the ability for a woman to obtain one and criminalizing them them if they do.

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Taking a more practical perspective:

The number of abortions in this country was dropping.  They would likely drop further if we enacted legislation such as paid family leave and child care, which Republicans universally oppose. 

So do Republicans really care about reducing abortions or are they simply politically pandering by restricting the ability for a woman to obtain one and criminalizing them them if they do.

Yep, also universal free birth control, and appropriate sexual health/reproduction education in schools would also help. Another couple of things Republicans oppose. 

Could also provide free vasectomy's to any men who want it. 

 

 

[WalkingCarpet 1,379]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, what's pathetic is refusal to acknowledge the obvious. 

Taking away a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body is assuming control over her, by definition.

That's not semantics, that's simple logic and common sense - attributes you apparently lack.

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

Here is video evidence of Ted Cruz and Fox News "Giving up the game" so to speak. 

 

Ingram explicitly proclaims that our current Supreme Court  was bought and paid for by the Republican Party with wads of cash, Federalist Society manipulation, and "fancy dinners", and if if they don't follow the demands of the Republican Party and overturn RoevWade that she thinks the court should be dismantled and have power stripped from it by Congress, to which Cruz agrees and says he do it in a heartbeat. 

 Absolutely incredible. 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Here is video evidence of Ted Cruz and Fox News "Giving up the game" so to speak.

Do you think this is why the Democrats want to *pack the court*?

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you think this is why the Democrats want to *pack the court*?

Why not?  Republicans have already packed the court by blocking Obama's nominee with almost a year left in his term, and then subsequently ramming through Trumps nominee right in the final moments of his Presidency. 

 

Republicans are allowed to do whatever the s*** they want, whenever they want, but Democrats are expected to follow everything by the book and be consistent and respect our governments institutional norms or else they're evil? That's not really a fair playing field. 

 

[jj3jordan 2,054]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, what's pathetic is refusal to acknowledge the obvious. 

Taking away a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body is assuming control over her, by definition.

That's not semantics, that's simple logic and common sense - attributes you apparently lack.

What’s pathetic is your refusal to acknowledge that a woman’s right to ‘make her own decisions’ also includes her baby’s body not just hers.  Ever stop to think what that baby would “choose” if given a choice? That is what being pro life is about.

[jj3jordan 2,054]

24 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Why not?  Republicans have already packed the court by blocking Obama's nominee with almost a year left in his term, and then subsequently ramming through Trumps nominee right in the final moments of his Presidency. 

 

Republicans are allowed to do whatever the s*** they want, whenever they want, but Democrats are expected to follow everything by the book and be consistent and respect our governments institutional norms or else they're evil? That's not really a fair playing field. 

 

Your second paragraph is completely devoid of reality.

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

33 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Why not?

Basically it is the same thing you are accusing Ted Cruz and Laura Ingram of doing.  Either we get back to the SCOTUS being judges and not expecting them to tow the political line or it is all out warfare.

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Basically it is the same thing you are accusing Ted Cruz and Laura Ingram of doing.  

 

 

I'm not accusing them of anything. I'm just taking their own words at face value. 

 

 

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

Either we get back to the SCOTUS being judges and not expecting them to tow the political line or it is all out warfare.

 

That is a good idea, and I agree, but it's looking like that might be too late. 

 

We'll see. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

1 minute ago, CoffeeTiger said:

That is a good idea, and I agree, but it's looking like that might be too late. 

 

We'll see. 

If one side is unwilling to take the first step it’s will be too late.

[Grumps 3,704]

So does anyone on the "pro-choice" side of things think that unborn human fetuses/babies should have any legal rights at all? When do you think that legal rights begin? Is it at birth or at viability or when?

[SaturdayGT 719]

On 12/3/2021 at 12:06 AM, homersapien said:

Doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks about it. That's effectively what it is.

Is it?..pretty cocky to think your the end all be all thoughts and opinions are authority here...lol

Edited December 5, 2021 by SaturdayGT

[SaturdayGT 719]

On 12/3/2021 at 3:58 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

Why not?  Republicans have already packed the court by blocking Obama's nominee with almost a year left in his term, and then subsequently ramming through Trumps nominee right in the final moments of his Presidency. 

 

Republicans are allowed to do whatever the s*** they want, whenever they want, but Democrats are expected to follow everything by the book and be consistent and respect our governments institutional norms or else they're evil? That's not really a fair playing field. 

 

Wait....define "packing the court"...

[SaturdayGT 719]

Lol...Ichy da housefly...buzzin

[homersapien 11,386]

14 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

Is it?..pretty cocky to think your the end all be all thoughts and opinions are authority here...lol

OK fine, have  it  your way. Dictating a person's personal reproductive choices is not exerting control over them.  

Edited December 5, 2021 by homersapien