moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 26, 2023 22:46:04 GMT -5
What *should* happen and what will happen are likely to be totally different things, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong, though.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 26, 2023 20:32:58 GMT -5
I didn't know it was trademarked either. I think Fuzzy's Tacos uses it, too. Oddly enough, I'm actually eating "the Bell" right now.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 23, 2023 9:39:43 GMT -5
I'll just lock it, so people can easily access the other thread if they want it.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 23, 2023 7:38:38 GMT -5
There's been a thread on this already, though the title doesn't really indicate that's what it's about.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 22, 2023 15:21:07 GMT -5
Throwing a tantrum? I might agree if the circumstances were different. But when little bro throws it back I can understand the kid being upset and crying out of disappointment and maybe anger. Little sibs ruin everything, yanno? But I definitely don't consider it to be a tantrum in any traditional sense of the word.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 16, 2023 13:36:43 GMT -5
Or maybe you should strongly consider finding a board that aligns more closely with your opinions.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 16, 2023 12:59:44 GMT -5
All good questions 1 agree it does take alot of time for technology. We don't live today for what maybe tomorrow innovations. We live with what we have and inspire for more. 2 Yes it is ok to do that. You don't get 20 yrs to prove your innocence. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If that has been done that was your time. There is an appeal process that should be no more than 3 years to use it up. To think you should pay for someone to live for 20 years when they were already proven guilty and sentenced to death is stupid. 3. Like another poster said not pro-life just anti-abortion there is a big difference Wow. And that is all I am going to say because otherwise I am going to get banned. What a stupid (and borderline elitist) thing to say. Because I can pretty well guarantee that if it were YOU on death row wrongly, you would do whatever you could for as long as you could to prove your innocence and clear your name. And if you wouldn't, you have even less regard for your own life than you do for everyone else's. Of course, not everyone can afford to do that, hence the elitist comment.
I mean, how many cases have we seen where Black men especially get absolutely *railroaded* despite the lack of true evidence and sentenced to prison or death. Central Park 5 comes to mind.
Ledell Lee was executed while proclaiming his innocence for over 20 yrs. 4 years after his execution, DNA evidence proved him innocent. Ledell Lee DNA evidence
Here's another who would have received the death penalty but for a hung jury. He spent 38 yrs in prison before being found innocent due to new DNA evidence. Maurice Hastings found innocent after 38 yrs
Anyone who thinks this is ok simply because 'a jury found them guilty' is a shit human being.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 14, 2023 13:26:33 GMT -5
So I was just watching an interview with one of Trumps previous attorneys on CNN. He's saying that Trump was negotiating with the Archives folks very nicely and the problem is the AG came at Trump too aggressively in it's first communication. If they had been nicer Trump would have cooperated. He's also saying that Trump had the right to keep "personal" documents and he hadn't gone through the boxes yet to determine what was personal and what wasn't.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 13, 2023 16:29:26 GMT -5
But, there should still be SOME requirements along the lines of 'you can't have been indicted of crimes related to national security'! Because if you're depending on the voters to make sure he doesn't get back in, I'm not at ALL convinced they'll come through for us. History is full of people not being convinced that "they" would come through for "us" and therefore deciding to preemptively take options away from "them". While in the case of Trump I am one of "us", I am aware that next time I could be one of "them". I understand your point. But this is a very unique scenario that would almost certainly affect our national security. It already *has*. That should be a hard nope to running again. Why take that chance? My opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it. lol
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 13, 2023 8:58:24 GMT -5
You know, I could maybe see this for lesser crimes. But how can they allow someone who is charged with the crimes Trump is to potentially do it AGAIN?! That's just insane to me. I like that there are very minimal requirements for someone to run for President. I don't think that "they" should exclude people. YMMV. Now what would be insane to me would be American voters giving Trump the opportunity to do it again. But, there should still be SOME requirements along the lines of 'you can't have been indicted of crimes related to national security'! Because if you're depending on the voters to make sure he doesn't get back in, I'm not at ALL convinced they'll come through for us.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 12, 2023 16:37:23 GMT -5
any plea deal that does NOT bar him from office is a non-starter. he will win on the tidal wave of victim-hood which he knows precisely how to surf. the ONLY alternative is to sentence him to prison (if they can prove guilt, of course) for the remainder of his mortal life. he is in such amazing health that he should be show no leniency for age. As I am sure you know but posting this just in case anyone else isn't positive: Can Trump run for president from prison? Yes, and it’s been done before. There are no legal obstacles to running for president as a convicted felon or even from behind bars. And if Trump finds himself in that predicament, he’ll be following in the footsteps of another rabble-rousing populist and frequent presidential candidate: the avowed socialist Eugene V. Debs, who received nearly a million votes while in prison a century ago. You know, I could maybe see this for lesser crimes. But how can they allow someone who is charged with the crimes Trump is to potentially do it AGAIN?! That's just insane to me.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 10, 2023 20:00:11 GMT -5
I just saw this reel and it's so ludicrous (that anyone would think this is a thing), it's pathetic. And also, one of the comments was spot on - "only the NRA believes in post-birth abortion". https://www.instagram.com/reel/CtCv4PDPeTn
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 10, 2023 10:39:36 GMT -5
I think there's not going to be enough popcorn in all the world to go with the shitshow trump is part of, lol. I was stalking a former FB friend's page (no one from here and a definite trumpy). The person *still* supports trump and feels that the indictments are bs, that the country is doomed, and that everything the dems believe are against the morals and beliefs the country was built on. You know, I would LOVE to hear Paul's comments on this right now. Wonder if he's still a trumpy, too.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 9, 2023 13:13:51 GMT -5
And I think your stance on guns is immoral. Guns kill more innocent and *actually* living, breathing children than abortions kill embryos that are NOT YET living or breathing. This is where your outrage over abortion is just nuts. You want a clump of cells to be forced into becoming a born child but once they're born you don't give a fuck about all the mass shootings and shit that will potentially kill them. My outrage over abortion are you freaking kidding me! An abortion over (clump of cells) that will potentially become a baby will 100% kill that baby period. Guns will 100% not kill a single person. I'm not going after the tools used for an abortion just the damn people responsible. Just like firearm deaths people are responsible. Hell the more I think about it an elected non medical abortion should carry the death penalty hows that and again, what happens to the UNWANTED "potential baby" that you want to force some woman into having? JFC get off that morally superior high horse and let people decide their own lives! Whether someone has an abortion or not is none of your damn business, unless you're waiting with bated breath to adopt that child and give it the good life you obviously expect all these forced "potential babies" to have.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 7, 2023 10:12:24 GMT -5
It's not stupid. It's reality, all too often. And you still can't get it through your head that YOUR definition of "life" should have *no* bearing on what other women do with their bodies! Unless YOU are willing to take over the parenting of that child if: 1. it was unwanted and steps were taken to prevent pregnancy (which failed for whatever reason) 2. the mother was raped 3. the mother is mentally ill/ otherwise unfit
We have way too many unwanted children already,but you think we should just keep pushing them out because YOU'RE offended at the idea of ending a "life" that's not even able to sustain itself. THAT'S what's stupid. My opinion vs your opinion. You think mine is stupid I think yours is immoral. You can write down a million what if this what if that the bottom line is answer nothing is perfect. You act like I am the only one that sees the topic this way there is millions of us that sees it this way. The laws are changing And I think your stance on guns is immoral. Guns kill more innocent and *actually* living, breathing children than abortions kill embryos that are NOT YET living or breathing. This is where your outrage over abortion is just nuts. You want a clump of cells to be forced into becoming a born child but once they're born you don't give a fuck about all the mass shootings and shit that will potentially kill them.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 6, 2023 14:31:18 GMT -5
But, here's the thing. When it becomes "life" is subjective, up to a point. You call it a life beginning at conception. Others might call it that once it has a heartbeat, and still others may have some other thought. To base laws on something not clearly defined by SCIENCE (if that's even possible) is ridiculous.
And all these "lives" that are supposedly being saved? What about the ones born into abusive households? Or maybe the mother is mentally ill, or any one of the other myriad reasons why it's a less than good situation? Either they stay in that abusive and dysfunctional house or they get dumped into an already overcrowded foster system, where they're (maybe) also abused. Lots of foster families do it for the money and don't give a shit about the child. Why would you deliberately subject this "life" that you want to force into existence to that? Yeah, some might be adopted, but it's expensive to adopt.
I'll repeat that many women who get pregnant are on BC. My niece is because she knows she doesn't want kids. Others are because they were told it would be dangerous for them to get pregnant. But BC does fail! And you want to force those women to carry that child because YOU have a moral opposition to it. Those "lives" may or may not be saved, but many won't have a life worth living. That is irrelevent to end a life because of what if's is stupid. I might get into a car accident and get killed so I guess i'll stay home. Doesn't make any sense It's not stupid. It's reality, all too often. And you still can't get it through your head that YOUR definition of "life" should have *no* bearing on what other women do with their bodies! Unless YOU are willing to take over the parenting of that child if: 1. it was unwanted and steps were taken to prevent pregnancy (which failed for whatever reason) 2. the mother was raped 3. the mother is mentally ill/ otherwise unfit
We have way too many unwanted children already,but you think we should just keep pushing them out because YOU'RE offended at the idea of ending a "life" that's not even able to sustain itself. THAT'S what's stupid.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 6, 2023 11:11:48 GMT -5
Reread the part I bolded above. Pro-choice proponents are NOT trying to pass laws FORCING you or anyone to have an abortion, they just want abortion to be an option (that everyone can decide for themselves to opt for, or avoid). But these restrictive anti-abortion laws remove everyone's choice, forcing people to carry pregnancies even if the pregnancy threatens the mother's health or life, even if the fetus is dead or can't survive due to abnormalities, even if the pregnancy is not viable. The difference here is choice vs no choice. You understand this for guns - you want the OPTION to buy guns. I don't like guns, but no one is making me buy guns, I am free to have zero guns. You don't like the idea you might be told you CAN'T buy guns (everybody gets zero guns). Replace "guns" with "abortion": I want the OPTION to have an abortion if I need one. You don't like abortions? Ok, you are free to have zero abortions! But I really don't like the idea that I CAN'T have an abortion if I happen to have an ectopic pregnancy that will NEVER lead to a live baby, but could certainly kill me by hemorrhage. Banning abortion here doesn't save any unborn lives, but threatens my life by withholding timely medical care. Do you see the parallel? Freedom to choose, vs no choice? I understand everything you said. I agree with you on most of it except I think abortions should only be for life saving events for the mother. The situations where DR and hospitals are afraid of prosecution those laws need to be rewritten, I will stand with anyone on that sign petitions etc. I just don't see a need for abortion clinics. Banning elected abortions does save lives. Each one not performed can result in the birth of a child. I am not speaking for myself rather than the child who doesn't have a say in this but should have the protection. Once pregnant a woman is not just her there is a living human being inside of her, she should be obligated for its safety just like any other child. Lets talk about guns. I am all for background checks. I am all for needing a sellers permit to sell one. What I am against is someone telling me which gun I can or cannot buy. Each gun sold has the potential to end a life. Every non medical abortions performed does end a life. I have dozens of guns and over 100k rounds of ammo unless a life is threatened not one life will end because of them. But, here's the thing. When it becomes "life" is subjective, up to a point. You call it a life beginning at conception. Others might call it that once it has a heartbeat, and still others may have some other thought. To base laws on something not clearly defined by SCIENCE (if that's even possible) is ridiculous.
And all these "lives" that are supposedly being saved? What about the ones born into abusive households? Or maybe the mother is mentally ill, or any one of the other myriad reasons why it's a less than good situation? Either they stay in that abusive and dysfunctional house or they get dumped into an already overcrowded foster system, where they're (maybe) also abused. Lots of foster families do it for the money and don't give a shit about the child. Why would you deliberately subject this "life" that you want to force into existence to that? Yeah, some might be adopted, but it's expensive to adopt.
I'll repeat that many women who get pregnant are on BC. My niece is because she knows she doesn't want kids. Others are because they were told it would be dangerous for them to get pregnant. But BC does fail! And you want to force those women to carry that child because YOU have a moral opposition to it. Those "lives" may or may not be saved, but many won't have a life worth living.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 5, 2023 13:05:42 GMT -5
Not religious just personal. Not egotistical either. I have an opinion just like you and others have the opposite. Why is mine egotistical? Why is it ok for you to believe what you do and not me? I think it comes down to now that the law is leaning on my side by reversing Row. The same with guns the 2a stands strong and because there is gun violence left leaning people can only scream guns because the they know they don't know how to fix the people problem. Actually, it may be the quintessential example of being egotistical: Thinking that your own PERSONAL belief should trump everybody else's. And worse, that your PERSONAL belief should be made law for everybody else. The biggest reason why your belief IS egotistical and an opposing view is NOT, is that the opposing view is not attempting to control or mandate yours. You ARE trying to control or mandate theirs. All the opponents want is the same freedom to choose that you have. The ability to choose differently. Nothing more. I would also not get too excited about the current Supreme Court rulings. Public respect for the Court is at a low that we have not seen in a very long time, if ever. The reason is that the court is very much out-of-step with the public, and has essentially abandoned its mission to interpret the Constitution properly and logically in favor of attempting to alter it ideologically. That is not good for the people and it is not good for the country. Social conservatives are on the wrong side of virtually every issue, and we will eventually be due a reckoning. I doubt it'll be pretty. Thank you. This what I had in my head when I made the statement, but I couldn't think how to explain it when she asked *why* I'd said it was egotistical.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 5, 2023 10:02:37 GMT -5
That is YOUR personal/religious belief. Why does YOUR belief get to have say over mine? Who made YOU the one who decides that? I mean, how egotistical can you get? Editing to add that the snippet that TG quoted is *exactly* right. Not religious just personal. Not egotistical either. I have an opinion just like you and others have the opposite. Why is mine egotistical? Why is it ok for you to believe what you do and not me? I think it comes down to now that the law is leaning on my side by reversing Row. The same with guns the 2a stands strong and because there is gun violence left leaning people can only scream guns because the they know they don't know how to fix the people problem. Ok, but even if just personal, that only gives you the right to decide for YOU. Not for me, not for anyone else.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Jun 2, 2023 13:55:06 GMT -5
She has EVERY right. You don't walk in her shoes. She may have trouble providing for the kids she has, and can't afford another mouth to feed. She may have an abusive spouse who warned her not to get pregnant again. No she don't there are 2 lives there. If her life is not in danger then no abortion That is YOUR personal/religious belief. Why does YOUR belief get to have say over mine? Who made YOU the one who decides that? I mean, how egotistical can you get? Editing to add that the snippet that TG quoted is *exactly* right.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on May 26, 2023 12:19:13 GMT -5
no. a ballistic cannon is not just "another gun", and CV19 is not "just another strain". a ballistic cannon is a massively destructive weapon of war. CV19 was the most destructive strain of flu since the Spanish Flu. we should not trivialize important differences. CV19 killed over 1M people that would still be alive today had we taken it more seriously. no, i am not exaggerating. a significant portion of those people had contributions to make to society that can no longer be made. they have left children that they could have raised. they could have been taxpayers, firefighters, accountants, doctors. now, they are gone. for what? FREEDOM? i am really growing weary of accounting for freedom with the price of human lives. in the developed world, it is absolutely unnecessary. we can use our minds and science to avoid dying for our freedoms. or we can slowly convert this once aspiring nation into a shithole of regrets and prejudices. Alot of people must on this board must agree with you. Millions of babies dying for the sake of choice. How revolting And it still *DOES NOT AFFECT YOU PERSONALLY* so therefore you should get no say. It's MY body. My decision. I mean, seriously. What are you doing - personally - to support these unwanted babies after they're born? Are you helping to feed and clothe them? Adopting or fostering them? No? I thought not.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on May 21, 2023 11:43:29 GMT -5
I saw this on Facebook today. I'm sure the deniers will continue to deny, or otherwise make excuses though.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on May 20, 2023 11:42:58 GMT -5
Note- if this thread seems a little disjointed, it's because DJ asked to have the other thread re: Turkish Primaries merged with this one. It automatically sorts by post date and time so they're all mixed up in here, basically.
~moon/Laura
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on May 18, 2023 18:19:50 GMT -5
So you don’t care about women’s health. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, trying to sound reasonable instead of the radical conservative you are. You cannot even clearly state what you stand for. Which is it, do you want a national ban, leave it up to the states, or are we going to write a bill to allow for “medically necessary abortions”. But you cannot articulate what your position actually is Sure I care that is why I said medical abortion is ok. Elected abotion has nothing to do with health. If you are going to throw back my words please look them up. In another post I said I'm in favor of abortion going back to the states, I would support a national ban. It would be better for women if there was a national explanation for medical need but that is not going to happen so it would be left up to the states to decide the medical need. Is that clear enough. Im far from a radical conservative. I'm more of a conservative libertarian, but I draw the line on a elected abortion. I'm pretty strong on that. But again... how is it your business what a woman does with her body? How does it affect you, personally? Offending your religious sensitivities doesn't count.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on May 18, 2023 11:45:37 GMT -5
That's a good start, but we also need to limit the TYPE of weapons people are allowed to legally purchase! That's critical, if we're ever going to decrease mass shootings. I don't understand why that's so tough to do. Don't give me this bullshit about 'it's not going to change until people stop being evil'. People will never stop being evil. So stop making it *easy* for them!
AT to what end? AK, AR how about hand guns I can take a 9mm most common bought hand gun and turn it into a fully automatic sitting at my kitchen table for about 35 bucks. As I stated earlier the next gun to commit carnage is the shotgun very popular hunting gun. You can modify that too and get more power and turn it into a semi-automatic. See once it starts the rights of gun owners will get chipped away until the 2a means nothing. Basically we are beating a dead horse to death. So that just means we do nothing?? How utterly ludicrous! Everywhere else has strict laws. They work. It's a cop out to say 'they'll just find another way'. A crappy cop out to boot.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on May 18, 2023 9:29:15 GMT -5
So we just have to accept this as normal. What an asinine response, and contrary to what conservatives believe in all other issues. If people are the issue, keeping guns out of the hands of those individuals will help. No guns=no gun deaths. It is that simple. Your refusal to accept data from other countries in absurd, and you inability to understand how simple this is reveals your lack of intelligence. You have been in favor of a national ban on abortion. You said as much yourself. Are you backtracking now. You also maligned people who had more than 1 abortion. Are you taking that back now. Try to come up with a logical position. I know it is hard, but try. It will be good for you you have a real hard time being civil and not calling names don't you? I read your posts I have to sit and drink my coffee. I don't want to stoop to your level of comments. I will clarify issues that you mentioned out of context. Abortion, I should have clarified earlier that when I talk about abortion I mean elective abortion for birth control should be banned. I understand and see a need medically. Guns, I agree with a good comprehensive background check. If denied there needs to be an appeal process with the denial having to prove why the person is refused. The burden needs to be placed on the denier on why the purchaser is refused. The purchaser should not have to even state why they want it. I don't see where any law would have prevented any of the school shooting that have occured. That can be another topic. That's a good start, but we also need to limit the TYPE of weapons people are allowed to legally purchase! That's critical, if we're ever going to decrease mass shootings. I don't understand why that's so tough to do. Don't give me this bullshit about 'it's not going to change until people stop being evil'. People will never stop being evil. So stop making it *easy* for them!
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on May 16, 2023 19:02:00 GMT -5
Difference is, I could be directly impacted by a school shooting. Therefore, it *is* my business. YOU are in no way impacted when a woman has an abortion. And the whole 'innocent baby' thing is just bullshit anyway. In any mass shooting, innocent people die. Where is your outrage for them? I do have outrage in mass shootings, but it is directed to who is responsible not a gun. The same I have with abortion I don't blame the tools used to perform the procedure just the person who voluntarily gets a non needed medical abortion. The whole innocent baby is the center point. Pro- choice cops-out on this because they don't want to face what it is they are advocating for. It is easier to say it is not a baby. Saying it is not a baby is bullshit. Fine, but the point everyone has been making is that we don't need that type of gun in the general public's hands! That's what you consistently ignore. If assault rifles weren't so easy to get, mass shootings would decrease. It's common sense. To most of us, anyway.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on May 15, 2023 15:44:18 GMT -5
said baby is also NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS! It's not coming from your body so you should have no say. So no one should say anything about shool shootings right. I mean after all you are all so good at minding your own fucking business Difference is, I could be directly impacted by a school shooting. Therefore, it *is* my business. YOU are in no way impacted when a woman has an abortion. And the whole 'innocent baby' thing is just bullshit anyway. In any mass shooting, innocent people die. Where is your outrage for them?
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on May 15, 2023 12:31:27 GMT -5
Wild guess but that could have also been a trauma response by going on the defensive about it before she could be attacked by people for her choice. And even if she did brag so fucking what? That makes her a trash human. That doesn't give you the right to decide that ALL women who have abortions are like that person or that anyone who isn't throwing themselves sobbing on your mercy for what a huge mistake they made isn't allowed to have one. You know just like your argument that we cannot ban certain types of guns because "not all gun owners are bad people!" Interesting that that only extends to your ability to own a weapon whose sole purpose is designed to kill and injure things. So much for being pro- life like you claim. That only extends to you sticking your nose up my uterus. My kid dies being shot in kindergarten OH WELL don't I dare suggest that there be reforms because it's not like you personally pulled the trigger. I cannot judge all gun owners by one experience. If I have to mind my own fucking business about your gun collection then you absolutely need to mind your own fucking business when it comes to my uterus. First off what in the world would make you think I'm pro-life. Not in the fucking least. second I don't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else does with your uterus or any other part of your body. Just as long as it doesn't affect an innocent baby. said baby is also NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS! It's not coming from your body so you should have no say.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on May 14, 2023 16:17:59 GMT -5
An anencephalic infant has a heartbeat. It also has no chance of surviving more than a few hours after birth. The pregnancy will progress normally without significant risk to the women from a physical standpoint. You would force her to carry that pregnancy to term? Is that fetus alive? It has a heartbeat but no brain. Maybe you should acquire some medical knowledge before you try to argue these points. Medicine, despite your beliefs, and the beliefs of your fellow conservatives, is not always black and white. Yet I suspect you would cruelly force a women to carry a non viable pregnancy to term because it has a heartbeat and is therefore alive. And you consider yourself more moral and a better person than the rest of us Im no medical expert that is your field. I have also said for medical reason I don't know of all the reasons or factors involved. What I do know is that a woman should not be able to go into an abortion clinic and schedule an appointment just because of a whooopsie my bad Rape/incest - especially when it involves a child - is not a 'whoopsie my bad'. Nor is a birth control failure. But your high and mighty, holier than thou self thinks that those women (or children) should still have to carry a pregnancy to term!
|
|