SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2016, 02:13 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(27-06-2016 08:20 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  SCOTUS upholds women's reproductive rights.

or

SCOTUS makes it easier to legally kill a human being.

Anyways, I am not going to get into an abortion debate. I am trying to wind down my presence here for a while. However this ruling did prompt a question in my mind and I was wondering if someone could answer it.

I understand the reasoning behind the decision. The law in Texas was clearly a law designed to impede women from partaking in a "right" the court gave them in 1973. However in a lot of places, it is very difficult if not impossible to get a conceal carry permit for the exact same reason. The locality is trying to impede a person from exercising their rights by imposing onerous legalities. Why is it okay to use local laws/ordinances in one case to stop people from exercising their rights and not the other?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heywood Jahblome's post
28-06-2016, 04:55 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 02:13 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  SCOTUS makes it easier to legally kill a human being.

Well even if that is the case, it is under certain circumstances. I don't use the women's choice argument, instead it is best to go off population and other conditions. And right now the united states can afford people have abortions as are population is in a pretty good state.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 05:11 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 02:13 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Why is it okay to use local laws/ordinances in one case to stop people from exercising their rights and not the other?

Because prolifers are only prolife because they hate women. Anitigunners are good and noble people, but prolifers are the scum of the earth..[/sarcasm]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 05:20 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2016 05:32 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(27-06-2016 07:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I think it's morally wrong to kill an unborn child because it's a human, not because it's a person.

Cluck cluck cluck.
What is this ? The old ladies Catholic Women's Clucking Club ?
No one cares what someone who is totally unable to even begin to define their terms asserts, with no definitions of anything. This isn't 1st Grade Catholic School, Sister Mary Vosur. It's no more an "unborn child" than it is an "unborn great grandfather", or an "unborn adolescent". It's NOT A CHILD. Your use of the word "child" and "baby" is dishonest, and intended to produce an emotional response. It's a "knee-jerk tie-in to anti-abortionist garbage. It's a complete failure. It's not "killing a child". "Killing children" is murder and illegal. It's not "killing a child", you dishonest intellectual fraud, any more than removing diseased cells, from a tumor, is "killing humans". It's a POTENTIAL human. You have in NO WAY defined your terms, and you are totally unable to define your terms.

When EXACTLY in the process, does the union of two gametes become "human" ? Define that, idiot. Very very exactly. You can't. What is "a human" ?

You assert it's "immoral", yet you have not even begun to define what that means, from where that arises, and what is moral or immoral, or why. (Good luck with that). You just mindlessly parrot the crap of the pro-life idiots.

Cluck cluck cluck.
Welcome to the meeting of the Old Catholic Women's Clucking Club.
Sister Mary Vosur, presiding.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-06-2016, 05:25 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 05:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 07:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I think it's morally wrong to kill an unborn child because it's a human, not because it's a person.

Cluck cluck cluck.
What is this ? The old ladies Catholic Women's Clucking Club ?
No one cares what someone who is totally unable to even begin to define their terms asserts, with no definitions of anything. This isn't 1st Grade Catholic School, Sister Mary Vosur. It's no more an "unborn child" than it is an "unborn great grandfather", or an "unborn adolescent". It's NOT A CHILD. Your use of the word "child" and "baby" is dishonest, and intended to produce an emotional response. It's a "knee-jerk tie-in to anti-abortionist garbage. It's a complete failure. It's not "killing a child". "Killing children" is murder and illegal. It's not "killing a child", you dishonest intellectual fraud, any more than removing diseased cells, from a tumor, is "killing humans". It's a POTENTIAL human. You have in NO WAY defined your terms, and you are totally unable to define your terms.

When EXACTLY in the process, does the union of two gametes become "human" ?Define that, idiot. Very very exactly. You can't. What is "a human" ?

You assert it's "immoral", yet you have not even begun to define what that means, from where that arises, and what is moral or immoral, or why. (Good luck with that). You just mindlessly parrot the crap of the pro-life idiots.

Cluck cluck cluck.
Welcome to the meeting of the Old Catholic Women's Clucking Club.
Sister Mary Vosur, presiding.

Bucky, do you think very late term abortions are immoral?

Do you think partial birth abortions are immoral?

Do you think infanticide is immoral?

If you think partial birth abortions are moral, while infanticide is immoral, can you explain why one is immoral, but not the other?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 05:26 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 02:13 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  SCOTUS makes it easier to legally kill a human being.

Anyways, I am not going to get into an abortion debate.

You dishonest fool. You JUST DID get into one, you lying disingenuous old man, by an assertion which you IN NO WAY supported or defined. Killing humans is murder, defined by law. It's none of the above, grampaw. Time to join the 19th Century, at least. Sorry. You can only be the VP of the Old Catholic Ladies Cluck Clucking Club. Sr. Mary Vosur is President.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 05:31 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2016 05:40 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 05:25 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 05:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Cluck cluck cluck.
What is this ? The old ladies Catholic Women's Clucking Club ?
No one cares what someone who is totally unable to even begin to define their terms asserts, with no definitions of anything. This isn't 1st Grade Catholic School, Sister Mary Vosur. It's no more an "unborn child" than it is an "unborn great grandfather", or an "unborn adolescent". It's NOT A CHILD. Your use of the word "child" and "baby" is dishonest, and intended to produce an emotional response. It's a "knee-jerk tie-in to anti-abortionist garbage. It's a complete failure. It's not "killing a child". "Killing children" is murder and illegal. It's not "killing a child", you dishonest intellectual fraud, any more than removing diseased cells, from a tumor, is "killing humans". It's a POTENTIAL human. You have in NO WAY defined your terms, and you are totally unable to define your terms.

When EXACTLY in the process, does the union of two gametes become "human" ?Define that, idiot. Very very exactly. You can't. What is "a human" ?

You assert it's "immoral", yet you have not even begun to define what that means, from where that arises, and what is moral or immoral, or why. (Good luck with that). You just mindlessly parrot the crap of the pro-life idiots.

Cluck cluck cluck.
Welcome to the meeting of the Old Catholic Women's Clucking Club.
Sister Mary Vosur, presiding.

Bucky, do you think very late term abortions are immoral?

Do you think partial birth abortions are immoral?

Do you think infanticide is immoral?

If you think partial birth abortions are moral, while infanticide is immoral, can you explain why one is immoral, but not the other?

Nice try. Fail.
You define "moral" first, and then we can talk. Define what morality is, where it comes from, and why it applies to everyone, HERE.

The procedures you list are almost never done. Your question is a red herring.
Your question is DESIGNED to "muddy" the waters.
It doesn't matter what I think.
Infanticide is ILLEGAL.
You tell me how often, and what total these procedures comprise, and why we should even be talking about them ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-06-2016, 05:31 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 02:13 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 08:20 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  SCOTUS upholds women's reproductive rights.

or

SCOTUS makes it easier to legally kill a human being.

Obviously, we missed one. Drinking Beverage

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heatheness's post
28-06-2016, 05:39 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 05:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 05:25 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Bucky, do you think very late term abortions are immoral?

Do you think partial birth abortions are immoral?

Do you think infanticide is immoral?

If you think partial birth abortions are moral, while infanticide is immoral, can you explain why one is immoral, but not the other?

Nice try. Fail.
You define "moral" first, and then we can talk.

The procedures you list are almost never done. Your question is a red herring.
Your question is DESIGNED to "muddy" the waters.
It doesn't matter what I think.
Infanticide is ILLEGAL.
You tell me how often, and what total these procedures comprise, and why we should even be talking about them ?

morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

The waters were muddy before anybody jumped in. It's a very blurry line as to when a clump of cells becomes a human/person (whatever word you like).

I just want to know why abortions are perfectly acceptable, but partial birth abortions and infanticide are not.

You point out that infanticide is illegal. Well, all I can say to that is noshitsherlock, my question is SHOULD it be illegal, why/why not?

Why is it a clump of meat seconds before being born, but a sacred life seconds after?

The point I'm making is that you're prolife when it comes to partial-birth abortions and infanticide. You and Vosur are only drawing the line at different places.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 05:56 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 05:39 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  The point I'm making is that you're prolife when it comes to partial-birth abortions and infanticide. You and Vosur are only drawing the line at different places.

When is killing murder and when is it just fine? Soldiers kill others *legally*. Why do you have a beef with killing others legally anyway? What's the great big negative consequence of killing a foetus/baby/tiny unborn human/ whatever you want to call it?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: