"pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

[Finny]

ok. Not going to argue, just haven't seen it myself. Arguments/justifications I've heard from 'them' were far more nuanced, sophisticated and logical.

[Michael]

But you just don't have the energy to write them out or give a link or some search terms?

[Michael]

Arguments/justifications I've heard from 'them' were far more nuanced, sophisticated and logical.

What utter bullshit artists you and Steve are. I've asked you fellas three times to reveal the principle of why only women should legislate abortion and you both give me this horseshit. You can't remember one sentence from this nuanced, sophisticated, and logical reasoning? You have absolutely nothing to say, but you disagree. You're both lying on this topic.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

What utter bullshit artists you and Steve are.

Says the guy who is doing everything he can to derail a thread about a group of men from his home state trying to execute women in a disgusting and brazen display of hypocrisy.

[Michael]

Nice try at thread policing, coward, but I'm not derailing. I'm on the topic of abortion and it is you who are derailing because you have nothing whatsoever to add to the discussion on abortion and are just dropping in for an ad hominem.

[Taste of Death]

Michael displaying his sympathies for women on another thread

The third one almost had a double joke.

[Michael]

Another internet white knight larping as something about martial arts and tasting death. Uh-huh. Yet he has not the wits to speak on topic. No surprise there. You may have taken the empty mind thing a little too far.

You and clown #1 should fart twice and then form your own thread police posse. The other gals need your protection.

[Taste of Death]

C'mon, we all love fat jokes. I get it. She looks like a whale. Why didn't her parents have the common sense and good taste to abort her?

Because then we couldn't collectively dehumanize her by mocking her for her unattractiveness.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Poignantly illustrating some dim wit being a blatant hypocrite on a thread about hypocrites is not ad hominem. But, thanks for further showing why you are an entity not worthy of serious engagement. Funny you would (mis)use ad hominem in this thread though, where you have now called everyone names. And, if I were to use ad hominem against you, it wouldn't even be fallacious, as it would be a directed at testimony. Not that you care or I should bother to explain.

You are clearly not completely deranged by your faulty input sources as you seem to realize that you need to be policed, even if you take being called on your bull for what? Some attempt at deplatforming? Haha, rich as usual. Always the victim. Fighting the good fight. If you don't have a chance to defend White Nationalists, I guess murderous Republicans from Texas will fit the bill.

[Michael]

No larp-master, cross-pollinating your faux outrage does not connect the dots into this topic. Try again.

[Michael]

Ian, Finny, Taste of Larp, none of you have contributed anything to this topic. Your passive-aggressive comments are boring, witless, and humorless. You're incapable of making arguments. What losers you all make of yourselves here. Even your insults are lame.

[klonk]

Snopes coverage bears out what I was telling you, this was a forensic debate to advance the discussion, not an attempt to execute anybody. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/death ... ion-texas/

While considering recategorizing pregnancies as people, it was discussed that this would, of logical necessity, make abortion chargeable to all involved (who survive). Rather like this: If you hire someone to kill your wife, you did not kill her, but you are still on the hook for Murder One. Likewise your baby.

That was sound legal reasoning, but it had an awkward outcome, and the Texas legislature shied away from further consideration on that line of reasoning.

The thing that seems to have progressive media so agitated is that people must not be allowed to think or say such things. They must be punished with public scorn even for talking about it. But a logical question was raised in Texas.

Note that Snopes has moved the story to its "Outdated" bin. Old news and not worth pursuing, and in this case, it was never a story, really. It was free speech doing what it does.

My own view is, if you do not believe it is a real baby in there, just wait a while and you will find out.

[Michael]

What do you think about six states taking up heartbeat bills to reduce the time window for abortions since New York passed its new law expanding the time window?

[Taste of Death]

Snopes coverage bears out what I was telling you, this was a forensic debate to advance the discussion, not an attempt to execute anybody. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/death ... ion-texas/

While considering recategorizing pregnancies as people, it was discussed that this would, of logical necessity, make abortion chargeable to all involved (who survive). Rather like this: If you hire someone to kill your wife, you did not kill her, but you are still on the hook for Murder One. Likewise your baby.

That was sound legal reasoning, but it had an awkward outcome, and the Texas legislature shied away from further consideration on that line of reasoning.

The thing that seems to have progressive media so agitated is that people must not be allowed to think or say such things. They must be punished with public scorn even for talking about it. But a logical question was raised in Texas.

Note that Snopes has moved the story to its "Outdated" bin. Old news and not worth pursuing, and in this case, it was never a story, really. It was free speech doing what it does.

My own view is, if you do not believe it is a real baby in there, just wait a while and you will find out.

How do people square being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty? When someone's loved one is murdered, at the killer's sentencing, they stare him down and say they wish he had never been born. After witnessing his execution they go out the next day and attend a Right to Life march. I prefer the Catholic nuns. They're anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.

[klonk]

Snopes coverage bears out what I was telling you, this was a forensic debate to advance the discussion, not an attempt to execute anybody. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/death ... ion-texas/

While considering recategorizing pregnancies as people, it was discussed that this would, of logical necessity, make abortion chargeable to all involved (who survive). Rather like this: If you hire someone to kill your wife, you did not kill her, but you are still on the hook for Murder One. Likewise your baby.

That was sound legal reasoning, but it had an awkward outcome, and the Texas legislature shied away from further consideration on that line of reasoning.

The thing that seems to have progressive media so agitated is that people must not be allowed to think or say such things. They must be punished with public scorn even for talking about it. But a logical question was raised in Texas.

Note that Snopes has moved the story to its "Outdated" bin. Old news and not worth pursuing, and in this case, it was never a story, really. It was free speech doing what it does.

My own view is, if you do not believe it is a real baby in there, just wait a while and you will find out.

How do people square being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty? When someone's loved one is murdered, at the killer's sentencing, they stare him down and say they wish he had never been born. After witnessing his execution they go out the next day and attend a Right to Life march. I prefer the Catholic nuns. They're anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.

I'm with the nuns. But I have a little bit of a question there. Some people have shown by their actions that they never can be allowed back into normal society. What do you do with them?

An answer from the other side of the question is that the baby has not done anything yet, hasn't murdered anybody, so the cases are not the same.