Those words are used as click bait on Youtube because they get views, you may as well be angry that half naked girls sell magazines, it's the same thing.
Ben Shapiro v Andrew Neil
- Thread starter neckbeardthethird
- Start date
Those words are used as click bait on Youtube because they get views, you may as well be angry that half naked girls sell magazines, it's the same thing.
Hey I'm a simple man, I see norks, I get my wallet out. If that makes me a moron in other peoples' eyes then that's a cross I bear gladly.
Well my point was that time limits should not be dependant on whether or not the mother claims the child was the product of rape or not.
Like JRM I agree that life is either worth protecting at a given stage or not (although we would likely disagree as to when this stage was)
So the whole 'what about rape babies' line is to my mind slightly fatuous and designed as a wedge to push a wider agenda
Dont worry, according to GD logic that just means Caracus2k is the racist because he saw a racist act, whether there was or one or not, as just being aware of racism makes you a racist....or something like that
Dont worry, according to GD logic that just means Caracus2k is the racist because he saw a racist act, whether there was or one or not, as just being aware of racism makes you a racist....or something like that
Racismception! I love it when people make idiots of themselves. At least it's not me for once. He's also chosen to ignore all my posts so either he's come to his senses or doesn't want to talk to me.
Maybe he's gone out for a pint of milk? Or a beer? Maybe he's just been swatted? Fell asleep? I may be overthinking this somewhat.
Give me a chance to reply...
The agenda I believe is unrestricted abortion on demand at any stage.
And yes I do believe if you deliberately mispronounced or spell a name typical or one or more national /racial/ethnic groups that it consistutes a mild form of causal racism.
No need plenty on these forums to argue with all day long.
My post had nothing to do with time limits. JRM has nothing to do with my post. You’ve quoted me to bring up points that have nothing to do with the post you quoted.
No, it was designed as a response to the post it was directly quoting!
And what's wrong with that? You speak about abortion as of it's like taking a headache tablet or something. It's one of the most difficult decisions any woman / family can make. If someone has decided to abort a pregnancy then you can rest assured that it's been one of the most emotional things they've ever done so they should be allowed to go through with it regardless of stage. No point bringing a child in to the world if the mother isn't ready for it, the child will only suffer.
This needs quoting, you're never gonna live this one down
Also casual. Casual racism. Causal is a very different word.
So without explicitly stating it your post implicitly suggests you would support a late term abortion of a healty fetus.
If future suffering of a child is a relevant criteria why (if you are against it ) would euthanasining a newly born child, found with a serious birth defect, be any different in your view?
This needs quoting, you're never gonna live this one down
Its one I'm willing to stand by and is certainly one I have transgressed myslef in the past. So feel free to quote it if you like.
Not sure if you're aware of the details of late term abortion, but essentially they're aborting babies that can survive for several hours outside of the womb on their own, and could infact survive with the type of medical care given to babies who are born prematurely, but those babies are instead being taken out of the mother and then left to die on a table and then disposed of. This isn't humane in my opinion and I'd consider it actually disgusting and something that should 100% be illegal.
And what is the basis for that belief?
You seem to be making things up in order to argue against them. I asked you twice re: what your posts has to do with my post and rather than explain you just reiterated the arguments you were making... essentially you have made some arguments against points that weren’t made in the first place.
The post you quote was an answer to Diddums question so maybe you're confused?
You posed a question about 'rape babies' suggesting that whether or not a mother claims to have been raped should be a relevant criteria for whether an abortion should be permitted or not and I stated that my opinion was that it should be deemed irrelevant to this decision unless it could be shown that it was putting a party at very significant medical risk if the pregnancy continued.
Well that's a bit different, isn't it? One's an actual living child, the other is an unborn foetus. If a mother is 7 months pregnant and decides to abort her baby it's her decision. This means she's already carried the baby for 7 months, making it quite possibly the most difficult thing she will ever do, so she'll have one hell of a reason for doing so. That's her decision and nobody else's. I know someone who aborted a child at 4 months because she was in an accident which killed the father and rendered her brain damaged and partially paralysed. It completely broke her and she eventually took her own life.
Should she have brought that child in to the world? Would that have been fair to the child?
I mean you're essentially saying that it's ok to murder a baby that is perfectly viable because it's the most difficult thing you'll ever have to do. Wow.
At that point should they not just treat the baby as if it's a premature birth and then let someone unable to conceive adopt it? Why would you give someone permission to kill what's essentially a small baby?
Not essentially, literally. I am literally saying that.
From my point of view that's as bad as anything the Nazi's did
http://www.babies.sutterhealth.org/images/wc_fd_f-7.jpg
7 month old fetus