the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Speaking of which, if it were men getting these abortions this would never be considered moral issue.

I find if ironic that the someone who denies that children were murdered Sandy Hook have an issue with abortion.

No, killing babies is a moral issue no matter the circumstance, but it does affect women more in the immediate, physical sense. I think anyone will grant that.

Now I'll start the gregorz timer for how long until he connects this to Ukraine and that he thinks I'm in China. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, .......

So you do still think Sandy Hook is fake.

Michael wrote:Now I'll start the gregorz timer for how long until he connects this to Ukraine and that he thinks I'm in China. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, .......

Yeah!

We can discuss that anytime, any place. I am still active on that thread.

The question is where are your homies now?

Got to love Michael.

He wants nothing to do with the States but wants to lecture us on what is happening here.

Denies Sandy Hook ever happened yet tells us he wants to save the babies when we all know he clearly has women's rights.

Mike, I believe some people clearly have moral issues with abortion. I am one of them but I don't want to live the way people live in El Salvador where women with children are getting locked up for decades for a simple miscarriage and abortion is illegal in all cases including rape, incest and death of the mother. You however I am not convinced care about children or babies or war for that matter (since you bring it up) you are someone brainwashed by podcasts and don't know a damn thing about what is actually happening here as evidenced by your rants and miscalculations on yesterday's news. We see through it all Mike.

Back to the topic.

From all research I have seen, Americans are increasingly turning away from religion for a number of reasons and I don't see how trying to use religion to determine the law is going to help that in anyway in fact quite the opposite.

I think it's fine for people of faith to have these discussions but I certainly wouldn't expect others to see things my way. In fact I recently figured out that if you mention that you go to church to anyone they immediately assume that you are about to invite them which is annoying to me because I am not on the sell.

Needless to say El Salvador shows how horribly wrong things can go when people with the best intentions makes laws against abortion.

the "white men" seem to come up in more and more places in the media. are there any more specific way to recognise them, for example - blond, blue eyed, scandinavian

Naw, white men only refers to the one group that has always been allowed to vote for most of the history of this country. That's not hate speech or an opinion, that's just the fact. Women didn't get the right to vote until the 1920s in the US and in Sweden. A Voting Rights Act was put in place during the 1960s to (attempt to) ensure the rights of black Americans to vote.

But, the point was that slave owners were voting for things that slaves would reject if they weren't allowed to vote. Change it to Black men and Black women, from 1865 to 1920, and the principle is the same. One group was voting on the rights of other groups. Sure, they used tradition, religion, biology, psychology, and everything else they could imagine to justify their position. All were irrelevant to the people affected. So, the analogy is that only men are in this discussion here, now. It would be great to convince a woman who is considering abortion for medical reasons.

Anyway, it's already been noted; abortions will be done illegally, if not legally. What do you think the punishment for an illegal abortion should be? Would it apply to the woman and anyone who assisted her?

Michael wrote:Now I'll start the gregorz timer for how long until he connects this to Ukraine and that he thinks I'm in China. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, .......

grzegorz wrote:So you do still think Sandy Hook is fake.
Got to love Michael.

He wants nothing to do with the States but wants to lecture us on what is happening here.

So under 60 seconds. Impressive from a psychiatric point of view.

Hint to Ian, Steve, etc., this is how you look when you bring up where you think I live or where you think I'm from as a non sequitur in the middle of a totally unrelated topic. I'm embarrassed for you every time because I keep thinking you can do better. Call me optimistic.

I thought I remembered you saying you were from Texas. This is about a Texan legislator bringing forth a bill that I find to be representative of a certain demographic in Texas. Do you think such a law would be brought forward in CA? So, if I was wrong about your stomping grounds, sorry for that, but it ain't a non sequitur, pard.

I did take note that you went to a Bernie rally so assumed you are back Stateside for a visit or perhaps to join the valiant fight against Antifa.

Weird, you seem to be more all over the place than ever. Accusing us of fallacious argumentation but calling all the names after trying to derail and troll this thread.

Steve James wrote:

the "white men" seem to come up in more and more places in the media. are there any more specific way to recognise them, for example - blond, blue eyed, scandinavian

Naw, white men only refers to the one group that has always been allowed to vote for most of the history of this country. That's not hate speech or an opinion, that's just the fact. Women didn't get the right to vote until the 1920s in the US and in Sweden. A Voting Rights Act was put in place during the 1960s to (attempt to) ensure the rights of black Americans to vote.

But, the point was that slave owners were voting for things that slaves would reject if they weren't allowed to vote. Change it to Black men and Black women, from 1865 to 1920, and the principle is the same. One group was voting on the rights of other groups. Sure, they used tradition, religion, biology, psychology, and everything else they could imagine to justify their position. All were irrelevant to the people affected. So, the analogy is that only men are in this discussion here, now. It would be great to convince a woman who is considering abortion for medical reasons.

Your slavery references have fuck all to do with abortion or the 21st century.

Anyway, it's already been noted; abortions will be done illegally, if not legally.

As I've explained to you and meeks, this is not a very good argument because it can be used for almost anything that is criminalized, including murder. It is not by itself any kind of good rationale for de-criminalizing anything. Can you not even link this to the most obvious example, alcohol prohibition, and work from there, or do you just copy and paste yourself every page in order to grind the gears?

What do you think the punishment for an illegal abortion should be? Would it apply to the woman and anyone who assisted her?

There are punishments on the books right now. What do you think about any of them? Show your google fu and pick one in order to support your own argument because my answer to your question is that one.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:I thought I remembered you saying you were from Texas. This is about a Texan legislator bringing forth a bill that I find to be representative of a certain demographic in Texas. Do you think such a law would be brought forward in CA? So, if I was wrong about your stomping grounds, sorry for that, but it ain't a non sequitur, pard.

I did take note that you went to a Bernie rally so assumed you are back Stateside for a visit or perhaps to join the valiant fight against Antifa.

Weird, you seem to be more all over the place than ever. Accusing us of fallacious argumentation but calling all the names after trying to derail and troll this thread.

That's all fine, no offense taken, but whether or not I am from Texas (I am) is not related to that legislation or relevant to the discussion. Can't you see that there is no connection? If you said it in passing, no problem, but in the past people's guesses about my current geographic location at the moment of discussion have been used absurdly as an argument about any topic under the sun.

Michael wrote:

Michael wrote:Now I'll start the gregorz timer for how long until he connects this to Ukraine and that he thinks I'm in China. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, .......

grzegorz wrote:So you do still think Sandy Hook is fake.
Got to love Michael.

He wants nothing to do with the States but wants to lecture us on what is happening here.

So under 60 seconds. Impressive from a psychiatric point of view.

Hint to Ian, Steve, etc., this is how you look when you bring up where you think I live or where you think I'm from as a non sequitur in the middle of a totally unrelated topic. I'm embarrassed for you every time because I keep thinking you can do better. Call me optimistic.

Still denying Sandy Hook even after your fellow Texan admits it was real but blames psychosis, right?

Why are you trying to hide where you are from anyway?

Dude did you go full Edward Snowden and now working for Putin!?!

Your slavery references have fuck all to do with abortion or the 21st century.

You're still deaf enough not to notice that my point had nothing to do with"slavery." I didn't even mention it. I said that white men voted to allow themselves to own other men. I also mentioned that women weren't allowed to vote. The connection to this discussion is that, so far, no pregnant woman has contributed to the discussion. Iow, I'm not in favor of abortions. But, I think men arguing the pros and cons based on their own experience or knowledge misses the point.

Your arguments don't have to convince me. I scoff at men's arguments about what women want or why they want it.