Why are so many vegans "Pro-choice"? - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

The same reason feminists defend Islam. The left just loves the sound of their own voice too much to recognize their hypocrisy. Virtue signaling is all they have in life.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

And you guys continue to do your anti-virtue signaling, showing each other how spiteful you are so you'll feel comfortable around each other.

I mean, the fact that you guys just LOVE using positive phrases as insults, it's hilarious, and yet you think you're saying something constructive instead of what you're actually doing, which is proving that you're highly negative, hateful little people.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Can you show me proof that feminists defend Islam?

reply

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

Sure man

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/22/this-isnt-feminism-its-islamophobia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZHuFah0uds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuOzY8vk9xg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG4WCLOBPbo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6I77GV5hEk

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabby-aossey/muslims-are-the-true-feminists_b_9877692.html

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Islam isn't the problem. When you combine a religion with a third-world or a vastly corrupt country, that third world tends to take a fundamentalist route with that religion.

For example, there are blood diamond regimes in Africa that are heavily Christian (plenty missionaries down there). Those blood diamond regimes are as violent as any Islamic terrorist regime. Wow, what a coincidence that Islamic terror and blood diamond regimes involve a natural monetary resource! Yeah sure, a coincidence. But nah, let's just blame the religion. Right?

Also, people point to Venezuela's violence as a shining example of socialism. However, Venezuela is ranked much lower than Scandinavia on the socialist scale. But on the Christian scale, Venezuela is #1 on Planet Earth, baby! Funny how that works.

reply

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

Not really. You see those regimes in Africa are the way they are because of corruption in both police and government. The fact that they're majority Christian doesn't have anything to do with the economic status of the country, because the country doesn't operate as a theocracy. Blood diamond regimes operate out of greed, not religion. In the middle east however, it does. 40 countries between the middle east and Africa are amongst the worst countries to live in. And it's not JUST because of their economic status, it's because their laws are rooted in Sharia law. And when your country operates on religious laws that prohibit you from any form of progress, there won't be any. Consider how secular Iran and Turkey were in the 70s. Indistinguishable from Space or Greece. Women in short skirts, bikinis, uncovered for the world to see. Then the Islamic revolution happened. And down the drain went freedom and progress. Same couldn't be said for a Christian dominated Europe though could it?

No. I'm not saying that by not being a Muslim theocracy that your country will magically inherent the same fruits western society enjoys, but what I am saying is that by being a Muslim theocracy, you won't.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

"You see those regimes in Africa are the way they are because of corruption in both police and government."
Agreed.

"The fact that they're majority Christian doesn't have anything to do with the economic status of the country"
Agreed.

"Blood diamond regimes operate out of greed, not religion."
Agreed.

"40 countries between the middle east and Africa are amongst the worst countries to live in. And it's not JUST because of their economic status, it's because their laws are rooted in Sharia law."
Sharia Law, just like the fundamentalist Christianity of blood diamond regimes, is a factor of the third world when combined with religion. The terrorism, just like with blood diamond regimes, is for economic gain and government power.

It all comes from the poor and destitute regions of Saudi Arabia far away from the Royals. That's where Al Qaeda came from. Al Qaeda is one half of ISIS, and the other half is Saddam's regime that fled into Syria. Oh, and who are allied with ISIS other than Saudi Sunnis? None other than Israelies and also the US deep state. Religion is used as a recruiting tool, because Muslims all around the world know that Middle Eastern Muslims are getting crapped on by the world's biggest powers. So the recruitment tool works. And who does ISIS fight with these recruits? Iranians... Israel's biggest enemy! No Islamic fundamentalist would team up with an Israeli. ISIS, and other Sunni regimes, are just the henchmen of the Saudi Royals who we pay billions to to stop the oil embargoes. So just like with blood diamond regimes, it's all about money and power. But when it's christian, you give it a pass. When it's Islamic, you blame Islam... like a fucking retard.

reply

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

"Sharia Law, just like the fundamentalist Christianity of blood diamond regimes, is a factor of the third world when combined with religion. The terrorism, just like with blood diamond regimes, is for economic gain and government power. "

This contradicts my earlier point about said third world countries being batter, safer, and more liberal countries when they were secular rather than theocratic. Again, Iran looked indistinguishable from Spain or Italy. They didn't just magically gain all of their natural resources leading to a free and liberal Iran. It's not because of third world this and economic gain that. It's because of Islam.

"It all comes from the poor and destitute regions of Saudi Arabia far away from the Royals. That's where Al Qaeda came from. Al Qaeda is one half of ISIS, and the other half is Saddam's regime that fled into Syria. "

We're not talking just ISIS and Al Qaeda here moron. It's the Taliban, Boko Haram, HAMAS, Hizballah, Al-Shabaab, Al-Nusra, and countless other terror cults that all magically have one thing in common: Islam.

"Oh, and who are allied with ISIS other than Saudi Sunnis? None other than Israelies and also the US deep state. Religion is used as a recruiting tool, because Muslims all around the world know that Middle Eastern Muslims are getting crapped on by the world's biggest powers. "

Islam was spread through bloodshed for the last 1400 years. You think that the only reason Islamic terror cults exist is because of western powers? America didn't even exist back then. The British didn't even have an empire for you to blame white colonialism on.

'So just like with blood diamond regimes, it's all about money and power. But when it's christian, you give it a pass. When it's Islamic, you blame Islam... like a fucking retard."

I'm not defending Christian atrocities you blithering idiot, there just aren't any taking place right now. You keep trying to apply blood diamond regimes to Christianity and they're IRRELEVANT.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Again, Iran looked indistinguishable from Spain or Italy. They didn't just magically gain all of their natural resources leading to a free and liberal Iran. It's not because of third world this and economic gain that. It's because of Islam.

First of all, Iran is complete weaksauce on the terrorism scale compared to the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia.

Second, we created Iran by kicking out the democratically elected Prime Minster in 1953, replacing him with the religiously zealous Shah. We did it because he agreed to sell us and British Petroleum their oil. His replacement, the Ayatollah, hated that puppet and sensibly condemned anything related to the US. There's your Iranian regime.

"It's the Taliban, Boko Haram, HAMAS, Hizballah, Al-Shabaab, Al-Nusra, and countless other terror cults that all magically have one thing in common: Islam."

All of which take place in a third world with a valuable resource embedded in the earth.

"I'm not defending Christian atrocities you blithering idiot"

I didn't say you were. I said you were giving that religion a pass, as in you were correctly condemning their economic situation as the reason for the violence. All of the Islamic groups you named above are in a similar economic situation yet you do not attribute that as a reason for their violence.

"You keep trying to apply blood diamond regimes to Christianity"

Incorrect. I've disconnected Christianity from being the reason for violence of blood diamond regimes who are poor and sitting on a potential goldmine, and instead blame that goldmine and poverty for the violence, just as I blame the goldmine and poverty for the violence of Middle Easterners.

If you take Islamic governments out of the Middle East where there is no oil, there is no violence except in certain situations of corruption. If you take Christian governments out of Africa, there is no violence... except in Venezuela... because of corruption.

reply

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

"Second, we created Iran by kicking out the democratically elected Prime Minster in 1953, replacing him with the religiously zealous Shah. We did it because he agreed to sell us and British Petroleum their oil. His replacement, the Ayatollah, sensibly condemned anything related to the US. There's your Iranian regime."

He didn't just condemn anything related to the US, he condemned all the secular progress in Iran. The entire foundation of his office was to reverse a westernized and liberal Iran. He was the antithesis of progress. Because progress has no place in a Muslim republic.

"All of which take place in a third world with a valuable resource embedded in the earth."

And all of which happen to be Muslim theocracies.

"I didn't say you were. I said you were giving that religion a pass, as in you were correctly condemning their economic situation as the reason for the violence. All of the Islamic groups you named above are in a similar economic situation yet you do not attribute that as a reason for their violence. "

Because blood diamond war criminals that happen to be Christian in Africa, aren't blood diamond war criminals because they're Christian, but Muslim terrorists in the middle east committing religiously ordained acts of violence, ARE terrorists because they're Muslim. What don't you understand here?

"Incorrect. I've disconnected Christianity from being the reason for violence of blood diamond regimes who are poor and sitting on a potential goldmine, and instead blame that goldmine and poverty for the violence, just as I blame the goldmine and poverty for the violence of Middle Easterners. "

Then explain the prosperous secular Iran circa 70's.

"If you take Islamic governments out of the Middle East where there is no oil, there is no violence. If you take Christian governments out of Africa, there is no violence... except in Venezuela."

Venezuela isn't a theocracy. You really have a problem equating correlation with causation.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

We removed the secular Prime Minister and replaced him with the Islamic Shah, setting them down the Islamic path. Islam was already the status quo by the time the Ayatollah got in there. We turned them into a country of Quran thumpers, and so that's who they're gonna vote for. The difference between the Ayatollah and the Shah was the Ayatollah was not an economic puppet. He was a mix of the Shah's religion and the PM's economic aspirations. Trump ran a similar campaign... economic populism mixed with religion and nationalism.

This turned Iran against the US, and the deep state learned from that mistake. We turned our eyes to Saudi Arabia because the Saudis had no democratic elections to screw things up. We funneled billions into their dictatorship, and in return they sold us their oil while they fueled Wahhabism and Daesh to keep the dictatorship going.

Then in the 1980s, we still didn't care about radical Islam. Our big fish were the soviets. Who did we use to fight them? None other than Bin Laden's boys, the Wahhabis of the Mujahideen. We gave them billions to fight the Russians, and it arguably worked.

There are no real theocracies any more, just fake ones. Radical Islamists try to gain state power by aligning themselves all the time with people who don't believe in Allah, just as the Saudis are doing right now. Yet they'll turn around and say they're doing it for Islam. Islam is the excuse they use for trying to gain state power. Religion is the easiest way to get people to side with you in your cause. "Hey, if you don't help in the fight for state power, you don't care about Allah, and you know what that means..." It's the oldest trick in the book, and it works.

The Islamic Saudis are literally allied with US Christians and Israeli Jews to combat Islamic Iranians, Yemenis and Syrians.

All conflict stems from the Saudis, but we focus on crap like the Taliban and Boko Haram. We look away so we can allow it to continue. It's a fucking joke.

reply

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

What fucking difference does it make that religion is used as a tool to cull the masses for personal gain/power? The fact that it is used that way doesn't negate the fact that it exists in the first place. You're really arguing semantics right now. I'm saying that Islam is the problem for the oppression and stifled progress in the middle east. And now you're saying that Islam isn't the problem, because it's only REALLY being used to control the masses. Like who fucking cares? No shit. If everyone in the middle east decided not to be Muslim anymore, then Islam would be powerless. But because 1.5 billion people still adhere to it, It's STILL THE PROBLEM YOU IDIOT!

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

I'm saying we are intentionally stifling progress by making their brand of Islam more extreme than it naturally would be had we not interfered. Islam isn't doing it to itself. I'm saying we are purposefully spiking the punch by fueling religion with billions of dollars in a low-information, impoverished environment. And we are doing it because that poor, low-information environment is sitting on a goldmine that we want access to. You can replace Islam with any other religion and get the same exact results. That is why it is stupid to blame Islam. Ok, sure, you can blame all religion for existing to be used as such a tool, but that was my original argument... that religion mixed with a poor environment do not mix well. The way to beat it is to turn those low-informed countries into informed countries... aka a first world. Then Islam does what Christianity did... remove the bits and pieces they don't like and keep the remainder. In fact, that's what happens to Islam when it leaves the Middle East... because Islam isn't the problem.

Think about it this way. What we pay to keep the Middle East as radical as possible, is only a fraction of what it would cost to buy oil from a fully democratic Middle East.

Our interference with Iran is limited, which is why they are still able to hold onto their democracy. And every year they are becoming more democratic to the dismay of the Saudis and the US.

reply

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

Nothing you are saying makes a lick of sense. America installed the Shah of Iran. Under him, Iran prospered. After him, it fell. This contradicts everything you're saying.

OF COURSE the only way to eradicate religion is to teach and inform those countries, but you can't fucking do that when every time you do, you get killed for blasphemy. How do you not understand this? Any time women protest for their rights in the middle east, they get stoned. Is that America's fault? Any time a gay person is outed by the public, they get thrown off the roof. Is that America's fault too? You think it never occurred to anyone to teach Muslims to think outside their book? HOW PROFOUND OF YOU! Wish we thought of that centuries ago. At what point are you going to admit they just don't want our help, and that MAYBE the reason they're in the rut they're in, is because of THEM.

I already told you that Islam was spread by the sword for the last 1400 years. Literally every century since the 7th has been riddled with conquest after conquest after conquest. Do you not know any history at all? Show me what American intervention had to do with the conquest of Syria in 636. Show me what British colonization had to do with the conquest of Egypt in 641. Mesopotamia? Persia? Anatolia? Constantinople? 1400 years of Islamic aggression against any and all who refused to adapt and the only thing you can say is "blame America"? A country that isn't even 300 years old yet? And this was even BEFORE we even figured out how to use fossil fuels, or even knew what a fossil was for Christ's sake. What now? Who else are you going to blame? The violence happening in the middle east has been happening LONG before white people came along.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Where the hell did I say Iran prospered after the installation of the religious Shah? Iran was prospering under the previous Prime Minster that we kicked out. Pay attention.

OF COURSE the only way to eradicate religion is to teach and inform those countries, but you can't fucking do that when every time you do, you get killed for blasphemy.

Before you were saying Islam was the problem. That was the connecting tissue to all of those terrorist regimes and nothing else mattered. Now you're admitting that when you remove the low-informed environment, the radical effects of that religion are removed.

Well thank you for agreeing with my original point, albeit in a roundabout way. That was easier than I thought it would be.

reply

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

"Where the hell did I say Iran prospered after the installation of the religious Shah? Iran was prospering under the previous Prime Minster that we kicked out. Pay attention. "

You didn't. I did. Heed your own advice and pay attention.

"Before you were saying Islam was the problem. That was the connecting tissue to all of those terrorist regimes and nothing else mattered. Now you're admitting that when you remove the low-informed environment, the radical effects of that religion are removed.

Well thank you for agreeing with my original point. That was easier than I thought it would be."

What in the living fuck are you talking about? Your original point was that Islam was irrelevant to the problem the middle east faces, and instead, that it's thanks to American intervention, American greed over fossil fuels, and poverty in the region. How did we get from that to this? Now you're saying that those WEREN'T your original points and that it was really just an uninformed populace all along? Are you mad? You're contradicting yourself left right and center. Stay on point.

Also, how the fuck does me saying that by removing those that adhere to Islam, that Islam would no longer be a problem, contradict my argument that Islam is the problem? That is literally the exact same argument. Are you chromosomally deficient? Show me the contradiction.

It would be like saying that there's nothing wrong with Nazism, only those low-informed populace that adhere to Nazism are the problem, and that by removing those low-informed people, Nazism would no longer be a problem. Well no fucking shit. By that logic NOTHING is ever a problem. Communism isn't a problem, Racism isn't a problem, Anti-semitism isn't a problem because the real problem is low-informed people. Semantics semantics semantics.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

You didn't. I did. Heed your own advice and pay attention.

Well then that's just sad. They went from a democratically-elected Prime Minister to an implanted radical Shah, and you view it as an improvement. Smh.

I said Islam wasn't the problem, but that exposing a third-world country to a religion opens the doors to radicalized beliefs, and then later on I explained how it gets amplified the more money outside governments pump into it.

Secularism actually does win over radicalized religions as long as there is no outside influence.

If religion was the problem, then Saudi Arabia could have never become secular like it did by the 1920s. Then when we started intervening, it not only became Islamic, but radicalized. Because that's the way we wanted it.

As far as the early 1980s, the radicals were still in small groups living on the outskirts in tents, then Reagan came along and gave them billions to shoot down Russian helicopters. Ever since, we have continued to feed it because that's the way we want it.

If we do not feed it, radical Islam eats itself and becomes secular. Iran is actually on that path right now. Because why? Because religion isn't the problem ;)

reply

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 7 years ago

"Well then that's just sad. They went from a democratically-elected Prime Minister to an implanted radical Shah, and you view it as an improvement. Smh. "

It WAS an improvement!

DURING SHAH:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/01/27/15/3C903F5B00000578-4148684-image-a-113_1485529374518.jpg
https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/iranian-women-fashion-1970-before-islamic-revolution-iran-32.jpg
http://ultadin.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/iranian-women-fashion-1970-before-islamic-revolution-iran-48-890x395_c.jpg
https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/iranian-women-fashion-1970-before-islamic-revolution-iran-28.jpg

AFTER SHAH:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/iranian-women-hold-portrait-of-supreme-leader-of-the-islamic-republic-picture-id692995218
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/iranian-women-hold-banners-and-a-picture-of-irans-supreme-leader-ali-picture-id900851566

What kind of twisted twilight zone are you living in? You keep on saying that outside influence pushes radicalism and yet any time there has been outside influence, it has only corrected them. Once again, I'll ask you what outside American influence pushed for the radicalized conquest of Syria in 636? What outside American influenced pushed for the radicalized conquest of Egypt in 641?

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Both of your examples took place during the Shah's reign, proving it went from bad to worse.

I asked how the 1953 installation of the Shah was an improvement over the 1952 prime minister, which has nothing to do with 1970 being an improvement over 1980.

By 1977, women in hijabs were fairly common. In 1952, they weren't.

We're both in agreement that the Ayatollah was worse, but you claimed the 1953-1979 reign of the Shah was an improvement over the 1952 prime minister, yet you did not explain how, and completely avoided it with your "during shah" and "after shah."

reply

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

"It all comes from the poor and destitute regions of Saudi Arabia far away from the Royals. That's where Al Qaeda came from."

Absolute nonsense. Al Qaeda was founded by a billionaire's son and most of their followers came from the middle/upper classes. The 9/11 hijackers were overwhelmingly well educated and affluent.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Don't try to throw red herrings our way we arn't catching them. Islam is responsible for 2 thrids the worlds violence right now. Islam kills in the name of Islam. We don't associate blood diamon violence (How ever much there really is with christianity because its not apart of their claim.)

Same goes for venezuela which has a high crime muder rate but still no on par with war torn islamic countries. Your not fooling anyone.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Yet violent Islamic regimes only exist where there is oil, and violent Islamic regimes only exist in poor environments.

When you remove the oil dictatorships and the poor environments, Islam remains, but it becomes non-violent.

Islam in the Middle East existed for centuries without radicals. Then the outside world starts giving their Islamic governments billions to buy the crude under their feet, and those governments choose to keep those profits without spreading the wealth to the country, and the poor citizens respond by turning radical. To blame it on Islam is just as stupid as blaming Christianity for blood diamond regimes and Venezuelan violence, which I did none of the above.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Yet violent Islamic regimes only exist where there is oil, and violent Islamic regimes only exist in poor environments.

Your forgetting cashmir, africa and now pockets of europe.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Can't speak for Cashmir, but everywhere in Africa where violent regimes take place, it's in poor environments. And because Africa is more religiously diverse than the Middle East, some of those regimes are Christian. When it's a Christian regime, you correctly blame the violence on the regime wanting to gain state power. When it's an Islamic regime, you incorrectly blame the violence on the religion.

The pockets of Europe are not violent regimes. They are people responding to regimes in poor oil-rich dictatorships of the Middle East who use Islam as a recruiting tool. For example, the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando was by a man who was dissatisfied with the US's escalation of the Syrian crisis. We can't stay out of the Middle East because we are addicted to their oil.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Name some christian regimes in africa killing. I only know of the muslims of somalia and perhaps boko haram. Perhaps you can enlighten me on these christian extremist groups.

"The pockets of Europe are not violent regimes. They are people responding to regimes in poor oil-rich dictatorships of the Middle East who use Islam as a recruiting tool."
You mean these people in europe as well as the pulse night club shooter were not muslims. Don't make me laugh.

The pulse nightclub shooter was railing against homosexuality as its an afront to his religion.
Muslims are violent period. The US has nothing to do with it. On a good day they are killing each other sunni vs shia vs kurdish etc on a bad day they are killing Europeans, Americans, Indians, and Jews.

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

One has nothing to do with the other. I'm a vegetarian - not vegan. Eating a charred corpse is gross.

If you were concerned about the life of a child, you would promote sensible gun laws.

reply

[–] Duck6 (425) 7 years ago

I love how leftists always want to introduce all these laws and regulations with no thoughts given to the logistics of actually enforcing them.

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

I love how right-wing nuts always want to introduce all these anti-abortion laws and regulations with no thoughts given to the logistics of actually enforcing them.

reply

[–] Duck6 (425) 7 years ago

It's almost as though murdering a human being as bad or something

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

You just want them to be born in order to have them murdered in 1st grade:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/us/sandy-hook-newtown-shooting-victims-profiles/index.html

Your hypocrisy is showing.

reply

[–] Daggerboard (581) 7 years ago

It's not hypocrisy to think murder of a human being at any time during its life should be illegal.

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

Unfortunately, people against abortion support sales of assault rifles and no gun control laws which creates these murder sprees. BTW, which human beings? In India, it's common to kill female babies because they prefer males. Are they complaining about that or trying to find a way to stop it?
http://time.com/3830874/2000-girls-killed-every-day-india-minister/

Did these same people complain when American bombs were killing human beings for their oil in Iraq and elsewhere?

reply

[–] Daggerboard (581) 7 years ago

Homicide rates have dropped in the U.S. over the last few decades.
Homicide by rifle (any type) has been around 300 to 400 per year.
Homicide by assault weapon? Less than 1% of all homicides.
There are around 900,000 lives taken by various abortion techniques in the U.S. per year. The question should be why do leftists focus on the less than 300 but ignore the 900k?
Pro-lifers don't want any innocent life taken anywhere. Not sure why you bring up just India, but there are pro-life partners working there teaching women what actually happens to their child.
Pro-lifers do care about homicide by firearm, but there is simply a difference of opinion on the best way to combat it. Some feel taking away firearms from law-abiding citizens would backfire and create an even worse situation. This latest incident was not the fault of the gun or a gun law. Though ultimately the fault of the killer's, government-wise, it was the fault of the FBI (they admitted it), the local law enforcement, and the local liberal policy of not arresting students when they break the law. No record, no reason to stop Cruz from buying a gun.

By the way, I haven't heard anyone support the sale of assault rifles (fully auto). Did you mean assault weapon? Or are you just trolling?

And, yes, pro-lifers who believed the U.S. went into Iraq for oil did complain.

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

"And, yes, pro-lifers who believed the U.S. went into Iraq for oil did complain."
Not initially.

"I haven't heard anyone support the sale of assault rifles..."
...NRA still against raising legal age to buy assault rifles...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-raising-legal-age-buy-assault-rifles-article-1.3841234

There is a correlation between how many guns are available and gun deaths:
*On average there are nearly 13,000 gun homicides a year in the U.S. For every one person killed with guns, two more are injured.

*America’s gun homicide rate is more than 25 times the average of other high-income countries:
https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/#Injuries

*States with the highest gun death rates consistently have weak gun laws:
https://giffords.org/2018/03/gun-law-scorecard/

...AR-15s have been so frequently used in mass shootings for two reasons: popularity and lethality...
http://www.businessinsider.com/ar-15-semi-automatic-history-why-used-mass-shootings-2018-2#its-also-easy-to-obtain-and-purchase-but-how-easy-depends-on-where-you-live-9

"There are around 900,000 lives taken by various abortion techniques in the U.S. per year. The question should be why do leftists focus on the less than 300 but ignore the 900k?"
There are around 50 million lives taken by various abortion techniques worldwide per year. The question should be why do right-wingers focus on the less than 900k but ignore the 50 million?"

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Unfortunately, people against abortion support sales of assault rifles and no gun control laws which creates these murder sprees.

Right. It's another example of how the church and the NRA are in lockstep with each other. They scratch each other's backs, and they also lobby the same politicians who end up spreading both messages that "god is good" and "guns are good." It's almost like those people are being told what to think. Hmmmmm.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

The church and the NRA are causually linked by being conservatist groups. Your attempts to group christianity with gun violence is pretty laughable as your attempts to paint islam as being orthogonal to the violence of the world.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Burk48917 (11356) 7 years ago

Mmmmmm....charred corpse,(drooling). To be fair, I'll enjoy some sushi or some lovely steak tartare too.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

If you were concerned about the life of a child you woulden't advocate killing them in the womb.

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

"Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. [...] These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
-Supreme Court

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

That is not true our law said nothing about the definition of human life, nor a womans right to choose. Instead it weaseled around the issue by pretending abortion is a privacy issue between a doctor and his/her patience, in short the supreme court never said this was an equal protection issue for women. It just said we can't interfere with doctors and patients yet Doctor Kevorkian was jailed inspite of roe vs wade.

This is a cop out since liberals didn't have a spine to approach the real issue of defining if fetal tissue constitutes human life or not. Liberals don't care about process or meaning they only want a certain outcome and will achieve it by any means hence foolish discussions about sparing unborn children from the suffering they may but probably won't experience in their future.

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

The above quote was from Planned Parenthood v. Casey Supreme Court Decision (1992).

Roe vs Wade:
"...right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

"...We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

"...the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

You're confusing the role of doctors re: Roe vs Wade. The full decision:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

Doc Kevorikian was killing "persons in the whole sense".

Actions speak louder than words:
*"Pro-lifers" never complain about abortions outside of the U.S. nor do anything.
*They never complain about U.S. bombs killing babies, children, the unborn.
*No initiative to help impoverished nations where babies/children suffer and die everyday.
*They supported Trump when he denounced pregnant women entering the U.S. to have babies. Why not support women who want to have healthy babies & give them the best health care and life for the unborn?
*They're against birth control being paid by insurance which would lower unwanted pregnancies ipso facto abortions.
*They don't want any national health insurance that would help insure healthy births.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Keelai read the text and you see the supreme side stepped the issue of determining if a fetus is alive or not and even declared it doesn't need to consider that. Roe vs wade was always about side stepping the issue in the typical Liberal fasion of "the means justify the ends".

As for your "Actions speak louder then words" you again demonstrate your inability to avoid the false equivalency fallacy in your attempts to deflect the issue so I don't bother to refute them. They fall on their own merits.

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

"Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees. The only Democrat appointee, Byron White, voted against Roe v. Wade."
I'm not sure why you're mentioning liberals.

"..the issue of determining if a fetus is alive or not... "
You're confused. The issue is whether the fetus is a person with full rights. The answer is no. That was addressed by the Supreme Court and I included some of their text in my prior reply.

The other issue is when does life begin with the Supreme Court in their decision stating that there is no consensus. Practically no one (except Catholics) consider it to be at the moment of conception.

"I don't bother to refute them"
That sounds like you're admitting to the hypocrisy that exists among pro-lifers. Either you care about ALL children or don't. By your omission, you're admitting that you don't.

While Roe vs Wade exists, I would think pro-lifers would do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies and help women have healthy deliveries instead of just useless lip service.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

The other issue is when does life begin with the Supreme Court in their decision stating that there is no consensus. Practically no one (except Catholics) consider it to be at the moment of conception.

I rest my case the supreme court was supposed to rule on if a fetus is a human or not and they weasled out by saying "Not our problem, we won't rule on that". Which is the very reason this case went to the supreme court to begin with. Thank you again for affirming my assertion.

"I don't bother to refute them"
That sounds like you're admitting to the hypocrisy that exists among pro-lifers. Either you care about ALL children or don't. By your omission, you're admitting that you don't.

No very simply you have a nasty habbit of circling the argument ad nauseam with your favorite logical fallacies namely red herring, straw man and other false equivalence fallacies which are the staple of your thinking.

1) Bombing children on accident and killing them in the womb are not equivlent. (And we care about both by the way). Also since this is the first time you've used the excluded middle fallacy I'll mention it this once so you can take corrective behavior on it. I feel obligated to tell you rather then ignore it.

Theres no need for me to point that out or any one else for that matter. When some one like you repeatedly drowns in the same fallacy over and over and won't learn from his mistakes we are under no obligation to keep correcting you. You need to learn from your mistakes. Its clear you've come to believe you've won an argument by the perception that an opponent has given up and submitted to your illogical attacks but they've pretty much given up on your ability to demonstrate clearity of thought. Learn from your mistakes people arn't backing down cause you've won they are backing down cause you can't learn the issues or how to converse in a rational debate. I'm not saying these mistakes are indicative of your your political beliefs at all but your method of backing those beliefs needs to improve if you expect us to continue conversing with you.

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

"the supreme court was supposed to rule on if a fetus is a human or not"
Not true. They were supposed to rule if it was legal to restrict a woman's access to abortion.

"...they weasled out by saying "Not our problem, we won't rule on that"."
You're confusing two separate questions. The first wasn't if a fetus is human, but whether it was considered a life. The Supreme Court clearly said no. It was considered a "potential life" which is different.
The second question was when is the exact moment when life begins. The Court stated that everyone agrees life begins at birth. Before birth, there is no consensus. The Court made it clear that answering this question wasn't needed in order to reach a decision since they considered a fetus to be a "potential life" not life.

I'm curious if you read the actual decision. It's long, but worth a read.

"Either you care about ALL children or don't. By your omission, you're admitting that you don't."
Pro-choice supporters don't consider a fetus in the first trimester to be a child. Neither does any law. I have yet to see anyone charged with murder for attacking a pregnant woman who then ends up miscarrying. The Supreme Court mentions the same in their decision.

"Bombing children on accident"
There's nothing accidental about warfare. I heard plenty of conservatives cheer the war on Iraq before it became unpopular. The popularity of these terrorists' organizations sprang up partially because of the bombings of civilians including children.

There are about 700,000 abortions in the U.S. each year. There are about 40-50 million worldwide. Yet, you focus on the U.S. and ignore the world. You also ignore children who are suffering through poverty and warfare.

One of the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent pregnancy by making birth control readily available and cheap or free and through education. Most women have them because they can't afford to have the child so that needs to be addressed.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Agreed 100%.

Also, there's no way to prevent an abortion. Coat-hanger abortions and women taking huge doses of citrus will be a more common thing. In this day and age, even with the OTC medicine available, it's a very easy thing to accomplish as long as you have the information. Banning abortion is and will always be a losing battle.

Establishment republicans don't even fight for it. They pretend to care so they get the religious vote, and then never talk about it. If abortion was banned, voters would be clamoring to have their rights back, democrats would be empowered, and we may never see another pro-life politician again until abortion was made legal again. The dems may even choose to play the same game, and never fight to legalize it, guaranteeing that they win every election by pretending to reinstate Roe v Wade but never following through.

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

Mississippi has only one abortion clinic. The governor just signed a bill to make it even more difficult to get an abortion which of course will be challenged. At the same time, Trump has filled courts with conservative judges hoping to block those challenges.

The same people who are against women getting abortions complain if they go on welfare.

"Mississippi was home to the county with the highest food-insecurity rate in the nation, Humphreys County, where 33% of all residents were unable to reliably find three adequate meals a day. Mississippi continued to lead the nation with a poverty rate of more than 24.2% in 2012. The poverty rate for children was even higher, at 35% — the highest rate nationwide."

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Sorry but I'm not gonna debate your assertions of me. Especially your insistence that I don't care about abortions cause I focus on the US (Which I can contrtol).

Your still doing your false equivlence fallacy so your done. You don't get to dicate what I am advocating or ignoring in my arguments. Your not allowed to speak for me when you attack my arguments. You must argue the merits of your arguments against mine but your not allowed to pretend I'm saying these things when I'm clearly not.

reply

[–] Keelai (34858) 7 years ago

I was actually referring to anti-abortionists in general - not you specifically. My point is that anti-abortionists as a group have a gap between what is said and what is actually done.

Interesting riddle I just found:

"You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down a hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one.
Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no "C." "C" means you all die.

Answer if you dare, but I bet you won't. (I choose A. to save the child.)

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Why do right-wingers seem to only care about unborn children? Why is the life of an unborn child more important than the life of a growing child who may need expensive medical care, or a country that's not chock full of guns, or, god forbid, citizenship to protect them from being deported from the only country they've ever known, that they were brought into with no choice in the matter?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Please don't throw logical facts at them. FOX NEWS doesn't cover that in their broadcasts.

reply

[–] sut6432 (2908) 7 years ago

Just curious....does MSNBC?

reply

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 7 years ago

Liberals would rather see children slaughtered in the womb, than rather have them face the possibility of them being slaughtered in the classroom.

Such compassion.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

My sentiments exactly thank you.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Why is the life of an unborn child more important than the life of a growing child who may need expensive medical care, or a country that's not chock full of guns, or, god forbid, citizenship to protect them from being deported from the only country they've ever known, that they were brought into with no choice in the matter?

And you think being killed in the womb is better then being forced move to your country of origin or not being able to defend your self as you grow into an adult.

"that they were brought into with no choice in the matter?"
I can't believe how the irony of your own words is lost on you.
Too bad you can't ask these children in the womb whast their choice in the matter would be.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Unborn children don't have opinions. They have no basis for anything and aren't even aware.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Unborn children don't have opinions. They have no basis for anything and aren't even aware.

Unborn fetus start with around 200 billion nurons before they are born (at which point they are down to 100 billion). By the time they are adults they have 80 or so billion nurons. In short theres no scientific reason to believe fetuses are less consious then you. Just because they have no language abilities or show visible movent or have any life experience or formed environmental memories yet doesn't mean they have no self preservation or desire to live. In fact the ones that have developed muscle tissues do infact do react to the pain of abortion. The fact that fetuses are innocent of the full consequences of death should not be an excuse to deny them a fair chance at surviving it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

People are vegans because it is healthier and promotes more globally sustainable food sources.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Hydroponic farming is their argument for that.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Don't knock vegans/vegetarians for their choice in food. Knock them for the politics associated with them. I'm pretty sure the world ecology would be fine if we all ditched eating animals. It would suck with out steak though.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Burk48917 (11356) 7 years ago

I agree that cutting out red meat is healthier,but eliminating fish and poultry isn't. I've read about athletes who tried going vegan,and it was impossible for them to be competitive because they lost the muscle and energy. I will say,between being a vegan and eating fast food and processed crap, I'll admit it's probably healthier.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

What I find hilarious is when pro-life politicians support abortion rights in the case of rape and incest, proving they are nothing more than corporate monkeys.

reply

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 7 years ago

"I just love how anti abortionists arnt lining up to adopt all these kids they want to be born."

I assume you're against murdering one-year-olds. Because you take that position, does it logically follow that you must be responsible for adopting them once you prevent their deaths?

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Ironicly we loose more black people through abortion then anything. With out abortion the US would turn democrat in a single generation, More so then immigration.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

It's because pro-life ideology primarily stems from organized religion telling people what to think.

Vegans basically do what they do with no core institution telling them what is right or wrong. They simply go with what they feel is correct.

So if you really want to know why most vegans are "pro choice," it's because most vegans do not subscribe to a pro-life religion.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Baseless opinion and conjecture.

Baseless opinion and conjecture. Cool, that's so easy. Here I thought it was important to back up my statements. You've saved me so much time. Now I can just say those four magic words without explaining anything, and be on my way.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

It's easy to call you out too. Wouldn't this topic itself be baseless conjecture?

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Yup, it sure would.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Except you didn't call anything out. You inferred an opinion was baseless without asserting a basis for your inference. Without a basis, there is no call-out.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Shut it down then. Here it is again for ya:

"So if you really want to know why most vegans are "pro choice," it's because most vegans do not subscribe to a pro-life religion."

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Baseless opinion and conjecture.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

^Bland mindless trolling.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

^pwnd ^

Baseless opinion and conjecture.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Because abortion reduces child suffering, it reduces the number of children born into situations where they may be uncared for.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

Yikes! Suffering and being "uncared for" is a legitimate reason to be put to death? Are you really that mean or just a big jerk?

How about the many couples who try and adopt infants every year? They are on waiting lists for years. These "uncared for" infants would have immediate homes if the selfish sluts who conceive them would just follow through and give birth to the CHILDREN which they have conceived!

Abortion "reduces child suffering"? Are ya nuts? I heard that idiotic argument decades ago when I was in college and it is still just as stupid as it was then.

You never heard that the nervous system is developed in a fetus and it feels pain? Never saw those videos where an unborn baby tries to move away from the abortionist's needle?
I guess if you were unborn and faced with an unhappy life you would prefer that the amniotic fluid surrounding you would be sucked out and replaced with a saline solution to burn your skin and kill you. Or would you prefer to be ripped apart limb by limb?

The great "concern" pro abortion folks have for the suffering of the unborn is truly astonishing. So, any time in YOUR life when you are suffering and unhappy, would you prefer to be killed? What a jackass notion!

Many people are born with deformities too. Some need wheelchairs, are blind, deaf, can't lead "normal" physical lives. Guess they are all suffering and wish they were dead!

Who the freak are you to decide who is happy enough to live?

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

"the selfish sluts"

Thank you for pointing out the slut-shaming that is behind most anti-abortion rhetoric. I had almost done so myself, but I'm glad to see you doing it for me.

"Who the freak are you to decide who is happy enough to live?"

I'm not deciding. Are you an idiot? (don't answer that, I know you are) I'm leaving it up to others to decide if they're ready for a kid or not. I've never dealt with an abortion, never needed to. Hell, I've never even known of anyone getting an abortion, personally (they may have but it never came up). I'm also not a vegan.

Your hateful, antagonistic rhetoric has gotten very old.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

Frogarama- your knee jerk, pro abortion arguments are "very old" too. Sorry to say that. But it's true.

"slut shaming" ??? Well if one is behaving like a slut, why are they upset at being called out on it?
Anti-abortion? No, I am PRO life, even if the life was created by two a@@holes who could not control their hormones and went ahead and created a life anyway.
So... you created a life. Man up, woman up, grow up and accept the fact that YOU created a life!! You don't want to be a parent?? Fine and dandy with me!! As I posted before, there are thousands and thousands of couples just dying for a baby. None of these unwanted, "inconvenient" little lives would have to go into the trash bin at an abortion clinic.
Oh excuse me, not ALL their parts. Some are sold for cash.

I myself have dealt with abortion. I have a son who was almost aborted by his birth mother. Thank the Lord she came to her senses and had him. She could not deal with a child, no money or husband. I fully understand that. But I wanted him and I loved him from the moment I saw him. He is a wonderful man now. He is a nurse and he takes care of people. He is a fine person and a great son and grandson.
So he was a temporary inconvenience to the woman who conceived him. So he deserved to die for that?

You call ME an idiot? Well you are a heartless jerk! And as President Reagan said, "Those in favor of abortion have already been born."

Well , God will deal with your heartlessness in HIs way. I don't condemn, just reserve the right to say that you need a change of heart!

reply

[–] SusieQ (111) 7 years ago

The selfish sluts, huh? Like those raped sluts wearing short skirts asking for it? You ask who are you to decide who is happy enough to live, well I ask who are you to stick your big nose into other peoples lives?

The right wing looneys are always good for a laugh. Quick as fuck to shout about government interference and the right to have penis extensions, but as soon as it comes to what they believe to be correct every one else is wrong and every one else MUST do what they say. Kick up fuck about women having cells removed, but half a dozen kids get shot to fuck and no one wants to do anything about it. “People will murder people any way, it’s what they do. No point making laws against it”. Yay, that’s how it works. That’s why we don’t have rape laws, or driving laws or laws against every other fucking thing. But making it harder for people to get guns, that would never work. Best to just do nothing, because it’s working so well.

Over population is a problem, and stopping life from starting with a pill is no different then when the drunks pull out and come over your back on a Saturday night in the park. Unless of course you consider masturbation to mass murder?

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

And swallowing is cannibalism!

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Liberal logic. Trying to equate swallowing unfertalized Male sex tissue, that can't form a human with out an egg to fertalize as being the same as killing developing fetal tissue. Liberals suck at logic, economics, and now even general analogies.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

Oh Susie Q what a clown you are! That's the first place the pro abortion crowd goes, girls in mini skirts. What are your? Twelve? LOL I have heard that particular idiotic "argument" for years! I AM surprised you didn't also bring up the "fact" that most abortions are the result of some step dad troglodyte raping his twelve year old step daughter. Read up on some abortion statistics and stop talking stupid.

I guess you aren't a big fan of our legal system. It sticks ITS big nose into decisions about who gets to live or die every day. What a doofus argument!

It's been my experience that the "pro choice" crowd is real anti-death penalty. For some reason, murderers are higher on their list of "who deserves to live" as opposed to the unborn and innocent.

Women "having cells removed"?? LOLOLOL Now I know you flunked biology and probably finger painting as well. What a nonsense argument.

Your comment about "cells" reminds me of some of NASA's discoveries. They have made some announcements about "discovering possible life" on Mars because they think they think they have found a few one celled organisms. Apparently on Mars one cell qualifies as "life" but on Earth it doesn't, mostly because when it's inconvenient, it aint life.

I used to try and be nice and pull my punches with the pro abortion crowd. I figured they meant well. And of course I would never insist that someone be a parent against his will.

But the more I hear of the self centered me, me ,me arguments of the pro abortion crowd the more I realize how sad and demented your arguments are!

Overpopulation? Been reading Thomas Malthus?

So... who doesn't get to be here because there are too many people? If you think the planet is so overpopulated, then why don't you step off and make room?
But gosh we'll miss your genius and big heart! LOLOL

reply

[–] SusieQ (111) 7 years ago

Wow, you really are a spoon.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

pjpurple is either a child or a mentally-handicapped adult. I guess it's possible he/she is a troll, but all PJ does is "quote" random words while making offhanded remarks about someone's school/textbook knowledge, and he/she does it using elementary-school level Trumpspeak. I have yet to see PJ put together a rational argument. It's always emotional nonsense (Martian probes, really?) that has nothing to do with the subject.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

dlancer must be a left winger or a moron. Oops! That was redundant of me! Those people are usually one and the same. LOL And I use "elementary school" Trumpspeak??? ha ha Well I am only trying to talk to you on your level!!! LOL I wouldn't dare use big words on you. You'd have to actually go and find a dictionary. ha

It is SO interesting how leftard thinkers refer to all those who disagree with them as "trolls". Just goes to show you how deep their "thinking" is.

But referring back to Mars and NASA, I guess hard science and really deep thinking are too difficult for a lefty. But yes, NASA has found evidence of single cell organisms. To these brilliant scientists that constitutes "life".

But to a self centered, self involved leftard, a fetus is a clump of "useless cells" and not life.

If you want to continue to talk like an uneducated, ignorant moron, well fine with me!

I AM sure you have never understood a "rational argument" from me! Of course not, to a lefty, a "rational argument" is just an "argument" with which a lefty loon can agree with. If they lefty in question has to think, it makes his head hurt.

Y'all are so openminded just as long as everyone agrees with you.

Now hurry back to nursery school. You either need a cookie or a nap.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

SusieQ Wow, you really are "brilliant". Sharp as a dull knife. Thanks for the interesting comeback. LOLOL

Actually I have broken one of my biggest rules, i.e., arguing with a pro abortionist.

I used to employ a lot of the same dumb, heartless arguments when I was young. No one could change my mind. But then two things happened.

First I had a change of mind. I actually READ science and biology and came to understand that the unborn are not a clump of "cells". They actually have a unique DNA different from the woman. They are not a part of her body.

Number two, I had a change of heart. I realized that an innocent unborn life is at the mercy of the woman who conceived it. I realized that sex is not just a recreational activity. Its main purpose is to create life. I started to accept that God was not joking about having His commandments followed.

In the afterlife I won't be judged by N.O.W. , the Democrat Party, a totally confused Supreme Court or the likes of people like you! Good luck!

reply

[–] SusieQ (111) 7 years ago

Blah blah blah. Spoon.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

SusieQ- First, I must admit, I have NO idea how "spoon" is an insult. But I am sure it is since you have used it twice! LOL I've never heard it before.

Second, your comment reminds me of all the libtards with whom I've tried to have serious discussions. They have absolutely nothing intelligent to say, so they respond with "blah, blah, blah". So clever!!!!! A few have even put me on "ignore", lest their dopey heads explode from having to think too hard. haha

Well, here's hoping some day you will grow up and not be such a sissypants as to hide behind "blah, blah". But I so DO love the way the left has "serious" discussions! LOLOL It makes me realize how they should not be taken seriously...ever!

reply

[–] SusieQ (111) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

Sorry MY huge mistake!!!! Trying to have an intelligent exchange with a moron! Get back to your play doh and finger painting! LOLOL

And btw, you shouldn't use words like hypocrite until you look them up in your junior dictionary and find out what they mean!

reply

[–] SusieQ (111) 7 years ago

You type so much nonsense, I can only assume you sound like Charlie browns school teacher in real life.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

Oh SusieQ, I can't have an intelligent discussion with YOU! since you seem to be stuck in "Charlie Brown" comic book mode when it comes to discussing serious issues. I guess I will have to wait a few years (or more) for you to grow up! LOL

By the way it's "Charlie Brown's" teacher. Either correct your typos or learn some grammar. And the only reason Charlie and his friends had trouble listening to their teacher is the same reason you have. They didn't like to listen to intelligent instructions. Most children seem to think that they know it ALL!

That's you in a nutshell.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

First I had a change of mind. I actually READ science and biology and came to understand that the unborn are not a clump of "cells". They actually have a unique DNA different from the woman. They are not a part of her body.

Agreed. Its horrifying to think women view fetal tissue as being their property. It seems intelligent life failed when it developed in mammals.

reply

[–] SusieQ (111) 7 years ago

You kill ever time you jerk off then?

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

Silly SusieQ-- Interesting that folks like you can equate a serous issue like abortion with jerking off. CAN you be any MORE juvenile? Not to mention totally ignorant when it comes to science and biology?

But I guess between jerking off and posting nonsense on-line, you are just SO SO busy in your parents' basement!

reply

[–] SusieQ (111) 7 years ago

Squawk squawk squawk.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

WOW! You just keep showing how "smart" you are with every reply!!

Interesting that you should use a screeching bird sound in your post. Shows your level of intelligence, i.e., birdbrain! LOL

However with each moronic post, you DO advance your abortion argument. Some people are just too stupid to live. But lucky for you, your mom was not aware of that!

reply

[–] SusieQ (111) 7 years ago

😂 your desperation smells like fish.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

I wonder what part of YOU smells like fish! LOLOL (sorry but you asked for it)

But seriously, grow the hell up and stop posting silly insults. If you have nothing intelligent to say, then stop saying it!

Just goes to show you that society probably WOULD have benefitted by a few abortions, unfortunately those were the ones brought to term.

reply

[–] SusieQ (111) 7 years ago

Oh dear, the simple things just fly over your head don’t they sweetheart. Much like everything else.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

Okay Susie Q , I give up. You are legend in your own (empty) mind without being able to express a single intelligent thought.

If abortion to you is a "simple" thing, well you ARE simpleminded. Good luck on learning how to tie your shoelaces or crossing the street without getting hit by a bus. LOLOL

And don't call me sweetheart unless you mean it. haha

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

Yikes! Suffering and being "uncared for" is a legitimate reason to be put to death?

Please tell me, how much suffering can a 24-week old fetus experience? What, you don't know? I'm not surprised. Well, thankfully science has determined that a fetus cannot suffer until the third trimester which is generally around 27 weeks. So your entire argument here is null and void.

However, since suffering can take place after 27 weeks, that suffering can be a harsh reality for any child who cannot be cared for.

What's really funny is how religious idiots (both Christian and Muslim) will condemn a person who can suffer to eternal hellfire if that person supports the death of something that cannot suffer. Very funny indeed.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

dlancer- relying on "science", how funny for pro-choicers who have determined that science is wrong and the unborn are not yet human!

So there is a certain "degree" of suffering which must be met before we can kill an innocent person? Do YOU know how much suffering an unborn child goes through? Do you think it is somehow "fun" to be ripped apart in utero? Even if it didn't hurt, is destroying an "inconvenient" life moral?

Suffering is a "harsh reality" in life. I will grant you that. It started with Adam and Eve. Their sin brought suffering into the world.

But you did not address MY question. If you are suffering, would you prefer that someone put YOU out of your misery? Is YOUR life not precious to you? How dare you make that choice for someone else.

I just "love" how the pro-choice, pro killing the innocent crowd calls Christians and Muslims "idiots". Stick it in your ear! lol

I am a Christian and we do have some doctrinal disagreements with Muslims, but I do stand by my Muslim brothers on certain issues.

By the way, I myself DON'T condemn anyone to eternal hellfire. That is up to God and His decision based on how people disregard his commandments. God has made His wishes known. But our society seems to be based on feeling good and doing what we want. So there ya go!
You seem to know jacksh#t about religion. So do yourself a favor and stop talking about it. What a clown!!!

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

"how funny for pro-choicers who have determined that science is wrong and the unborn are not yet human!"
Perhaps in your fictional land of make-believe. Here in the real world, it's possible to be a human without having the ability to suffer.

"Do YOU know how much suffering an unborn child goes through?"
During the second trimester, zero. Since suffering begins in the third trimester, that's a no go for abortion after 27 weeks, but that's cutting it close so 24 weeks is a good compromise.

"It started with Adam and Eve."
There were no Adam and Eve. We evolved from rodent-like creatures after the meteor killed off the dinosaurs.

"If you are suffering, would you prefer that someone put YOU out of your misery?"
It depends on the level of suffering. Not all suffering is equal.

The argument that the suffering can happen later in a fetus' life is not my argument for pro choice. I am pro choice because I consider a fetus at 24 weeks to be part of a woman's body. That doesn't mean it's the same as clipping a toenail. I see it like an organ donor or blood donor. Morality says you should donate blood regularly and organs upon your death. That saves people's lives. Do we force you to? No, because it's your body and you can do with it what you please.

"By the way, I myself DON'T condemn anyone to eternal hellfire."
I didn't accuse you yourself. I accused religious people in general. You avoided it by focusing on yourself.

"You seem to know jacksh#t about religion."
Then explain how. All of your arguments pertain to your own feelings, not religion.

"So do yourself a favor and stop talking about it."
And give you a way out from having to defend your silly arguments? Nah.

"What a clown!!!"
Just a word of advice. Trump writes that way because of twitter's character limit. When you do it without that limit, you look like a fool... or a child.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

Suffering begins in the third trimester... missed that particular tidbit of "information" in the biology books I read!

And so back to "suffering". So if someone is unconscious and on life support and a big burden to the family, why not pull the plug? Right?
Life is only valid if a person feels pain or not?

And you STILL didn't answer my question. Would YOU want to be "put out of your misery" if you were in pain? "Not all suffering is equal". Well you did a cute sidestep to avoid the actual question.
A bad headache isn't equal to the pain of third degree burns. But who are YOU or who is anyone to decide that someone else has suffered enough? And how is that now the criteria for judging that someone's life needs to end?

"We evolved from rodent-like creatures". ha ha Maybe YOU evolved from a rodent-like creature since you obviously don't give a rat's a@@ about anyone else's life if you deem it too inconvenient.

If your pro choice argument is based on the totally unscientific notion that a fetus is "part of a woman's body" until 24 weeks gestation, well, I guess there's not much more to discuss. Yikes! No science at your school??

An abortion is like an "organ donor"? Did you ever take high school biology? Did you even attend high school? Just WHO pray tell, is the woman "donating" this supposed "organ" to? The trash can in the abortion clinic?

The fetus has completely different DNA than the woman. It's not an "organ" of hers. Yes, it IS dependent on her for its life for the first nine months, but it is not EVER a part of her body!
Funny, YOU giving ME a word of advice! I am not adverse to taking advice. But I usually prefer to take it from someone who has an I.Q. higher than room temperature.

Your arguments are all the silly stuff I have heard for years and years, ad nauseum. You need to read an actual science book and not the garbage that N.O.W. and Planned Parenthood put out.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

"Suffering begins in the third trimester... missed that particular tidbit of "information" in the biology books I read!"
Then quit being an ignoramus and explain what you read. It would help your argument.

"So if someone is unconscious and on life support and a big burden to the family, why not pull the plug?"
If they are in a vegetative state, or in an extended coma with no chance of returning, then yes. We do it all the time, and I support it.

"you obviously don't give a rat's a@@ about anyone else's life if you deem it too inconvenient."
I give a rat's ass about the lives of people who can think, feel and choose, and I favor them over those that cannot do any of those. If you cannot think, feel or choose, and you are in the way of someone that can, then you need to get out of the way.

"Yikes! No science at your school??"
Then quit being an ignoramus and explain the science I missed. It would help your argument.

"An abortion is like an "organ donor"?"
In the context of morality, not biology. Pay attention.

"The fetus has completely different DNA than the woman. It's not an "organ" of hers."
I didn't say it was. That is a tangential road you brought yourself down.

"Your arguments are all the silly stuff I have heard for years and years, ad nauseum."
Then refute them. So far all you've done is say 'OMG what science books are you reading!?' That's not an argument. That's avoiding one.

"You need to read an actual science book"
Case in point.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5854) 7 years ago

Interesting post. But you have proven my point. You're kinda stupid! lol

I have wasted time before with pro-choicers. Sorry to say I broke one of my promises to myself and did it again.

Life is only valuable if one can "think, feel and choose"? My heavens, what a moronic statement! Not an insult. Just a statement of fact. From your posts, you have definitely NOT demonstrated two of them, i.e., thinking and feeling. But yet you, in your infinite wisdom know how to "choose" who gets to life or die.
Arrogant a@@hole comes to mind when I want to describe the likes of you!

I can't waste any more time on someone so heartless, yet thinking he is wise. Good luck with your life. Hope you are never helpless and in need of life support. The family will probably pull the plug on you.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

"I can't waste any more time on someone so heartless, yet thinking he is wise."

But all you do in every post is waste time, and the time of others. You make no logical or factual rebuttals. You spend every word of every sentence making ad hominem attacks based solely on emotion.

"But yet you, in your infinite wisdom know how to "choose" who gets to life or die."

Only in the same vein as a man has the right to pull out to avoid inseminating a woman. Just like a woman has the right to take a morning-after pill.

You cannot prevent abortion. It is impossible. It has happened since human beings existed, and will always happen. No matter what penalties you impose, there will always be coathanger and back-alley abortions. And just like you, I would prefer the abortion of a 24-week old fetus than a newborn baby being placed in a garbage bin. When you ban the former, you guarantee the latter.

Deep down you probably know I am right. That would explain why you only argue in emotion and ad hominem attacks. When you break it down logically, you hit a brick wall.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

[quote]What, you don't know? I'm not surprised. Well, thankfully science has determined that a fetus cannot suffer until the third trimester which is generally around 27 weeks. [quote]
Cognitive scientist can't even agree on subjective experience of them selves let alone the subjective experiences of any other external organism. So I question how they can arrive at any conclusions of suffering. Is it because early fetal tissue has no muscle tissue to visibly react to pain?

"What's really funny is how religious idiots (both Christian and Muslim) will condemn a person who can suffer to eternal hellfire if that person supports the death of something that cannot suffer. Very funny indeed. "

And we arrive at your real objection to the pro life crowed, namely your disdain for religious thought. Show some back bone already, if you pro choice do it because you lack the ability to recognize or empathising with humanity as it developes before being killed in the womb rather then your hatred for religious people.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

"So I question how they can arrive at any conclusions of suffering."

Because suffering isn't possible without a functioning nervous system. Those pathways aren't created until around 30 weeks.

"Show some back bone already, if you pro choice do it because you lack the ability to recognize or empathising with humanity as it developes before being killed in the womb rather then your hatred for religious people."

Not exactly sure what you're saying here because you've grammaticized it as an incomplete sentence, but it sounds like you're saying "if you are pro choice, then do it because you lack the ability to empathize with humanity." The problem there is empathy is only an extremely minor portion of the instances that cause one to have an abortion. The most common reason for someone to have an abortion is a lack of finances.

What "What's really funny is how religious idiots (both Christian and Muslim) will condemn a person who can suffer to eternal hellfire if that person supports the death of something that cannot suffer. Very funny indeed" is referring to is not a hatred of religious people, but rather an example of their own hypocrisy of morality, because in the end, religious people are against abortion solely on moral grounds. But as most atheists are well aware of, religious morality makes little-to-no logical sense.

The idea is that God is moral, but if I do not believe in him who I cannot see and hear, he will send me to hell. It makes no sense because belief does not work that way. If you do not believe in something, it is impossible for you to "will" yourself to believe in it. A series of events needs to take place for belief to take place. If God and hell are real, then I was fated from birth to go to hell, and there was nothing I could do about it. I could lie, which would fool the evangelicals, but there's no way God could be fooled that easily. Can he?

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Because suffering isn't possible without a functioning nervous system. Those pathways aren't created until around 30 weeks.

A fetal brain has 200 billion neurons over twice as many as you have. Your claim about formed pathways is dubious as the process of learning actually prunes pathways that previously existed rather then forming them. Pruning increases the probability of neurons firing under a similar stimulus. Neural stem cells ensures pathways between the prephrial nervous system are connected as they form. Pain is always possible within a nervous system, Pruning just makes it possible identify the type and localize the origin of a painful stimulus.

"Not exactly sure what you're saying here because you've grammaticized it as an incomplete sentence, but it sounds like you're saying "if you are pro choice, then do it because you lack the ability to empathize with humanity."
See you knew exactly what I was saying but pretended not to so you could jab at my sentence structure.

"The idea is that God is moral"
No one cares about your thoughts on God or belief in god or lack of belief. This discussion was about abortion and I'm only pointing out that you keep dragging religion into this discussion as if its the only reason people are against abortion while clearly its not as evidence by others who have commented on this thread.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 7 years ago

"Your claim about formed pathways is dubious as the process of learning actually prunes pathways that previously existed rather then forming them."

We are talking about different pathways. I'm not talking about neuron-to-neuron pathways. I'm talking about pathways between the body and the brain, connected by a spinal cord. Those pathways are not finalized until the third trimester. And yes, science can measure that.

"See you knew exactly what I was saying but pretended not to so you could jab at my sentence structure."

No, it was a guess. The phrase "if you pro choice do it" has two mistakes in it that made it difficult to decipher, so I had to guess.

"No one cares about your thoughts on God or belief in god or lack of belief."

I had previously pointed out a moral hypocrisy among religious people earlier. You assumed my comment was rooted in hatred. I clarified it was because of religion's moral hypocrisy. Now you're upset because of the clarification. LoL. If you're that thin-skinned, then don't make false statements.

"This discussion was about abortion and I'm only pointing out that you keep dragging religion into this discussion"

Oh horse shit. You just got done crapping on Islam in this same thread, and I wasn't even the one who brought up Islam. Not_a_virus.exe did. Oh, but since it was anti-Islam, you were fine with it.

But when I make a point that pro-lifers are primarily religious, you get your panties in a twist. What a disingenuous little snake in the grass you are.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Oh horse shit. You just got done crapping on Islam in this same thread, and I wasn't even the one who brought up Islam. Not_a_virus.exe did. Oh, but since it was anti-Islam, you were fine with it.

Look at those posts again and you'll see I was defending some morons post that christianity and religion are violent extremists when islam has a virtual monopoly on extreamism right now.

Islam has its problems but it will eventually reform. The lefts disdain for religion probably won't yours included.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

We are talking about different pathways. I'm not talking about neuron-to-neuron pathways. I'm talking about pathways between the body and the brain, connected by a spinal cord. Those pathways are not finalized until the third trimester. And yes, science can measure that.

Fetus undergoing surgery have been ovserved to move away from cutting instruments. Sounds like fully functional pain response to me.

reply

[–] therefdotcom (964) 7 years ago

"Why are so many vegans "Pro-choice"?"

it is spelled "vaginas" numb nut.

" Is the life of an animal more important than the life of a child? "

yup. no reason to not eat both, though.

reply