Flushing an American
-
Ro0ke wrote:
but that's not the issue
yes it is.
Ro0ke wrote:
The issue is when life begins.
42
Mike - typical white guy Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I just think any "right" to an abortion should be actually defined in the legal code somewhere
How do we know what specific rights need to be codified? When the right people tell us? Or is that some sort of hat trick? I mean we can't codify every single right can we?
led mike
led mike wrote:
How do we know what specific rights need to be codified?
The ones which are not specifically defined in the actual text of the constitution. You know, the ones which the actual text of the constituion specifically leaves up to the states and to the people.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ro0ke wrote:
The issue is when life begins.
And that's why we'll never resolve the issue. Different people have different ideas as to where that line should be drawn. The basic argument is as old as we are: who is human, who is not, whose death is a matter of consequence, and what are the consequences of killing them?
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Ro0ke wrote:
The issue is when life begins.
No, the issue is which institution in our society has the proper authority to legally define when life begins. The federal judiciary has no such constitutional authority. Only the congress does, or the states, or the people. The judiciary has no authority to make law.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ilíon wrote:
Yet, would not *you* have been singing her praises had she exercised "choice" perhaps an hour previously?
I would most certainly have not, as I am opposed to abortion. You know, Illness, not everyone fits into your neatly polarized little world of caricatures.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
... not everyone fits into your neatly polarized little world of caricatures.
Of course, being a superior being, as you are, it's not necessary for you yourself to do other than stereotype. Or pay too much attention to the failures of the stereotypes you insist upon projecting onto others.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would most certainly have not, as I am opposed to abortion. You know, Illness, not everyone fits into your neatly polarized little world of caricatures.
But, the fact is, and as we *all* know, abortion is one of those issues clearly recognized and understood by all to be a "liberal" .... hmmm, sacrament. Certainly, one *can* find "conservatives" who pro-abortion. And one *can* find "liberals" who are anti-abortion. One can even find atheists who are strongly anti-abortion. But these are pretty much aberrations. If you had cared to actually read what I wrote ... but why would you, being superior, as you are? ... I expressed the expectation that you are pro-abortion, while very much leaving open the possibility that on this issue you deviate from your regular leftism.
-
led mike wrote:
the abortion issue is as simple as murder
what do you call taking a life? just curious.
Mike - typical white guy Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
No, you are not dragging me into another retarded conversation about abortion where your premise is that the life of the mother is not relevant to the overall issue. And for the record RoOke is wrong. When it's life is not at all part of the issue. Consider it life from the moment the sperm start swimming. It has nothing to do with the fact that there are two lives involved in the issue, not just one. Well actually that doesn't make sense since you have to consider the fetus a life to have the issue involve two lives, but anyway I think you should get my point.
led mike
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
about SB's members that they love to criticize every other thing which they want but when same is done with them they start pissing in pants. I love when you guys get pissed and come up such apologetic answers when find nothing sensible in reply.
When you point to the aberrant action of an individual and portray it as indicative of a culture, while expressing approval of the aberrant actions within your own culture, you have to expect someone to call you on it. I'm not pissed, I'm simply pointing out that you are a hypocritical tool, you lack even a modicum of critical thinking skills, and you seem pathologically disinclined towards introspection.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
that's what I try to you guys who ain't able to come out of "Holier Than Thou" state and always willing to lecture others about something which you never followed.
Really? When have I posted any criticism of your country, your culture, or anything other than the actions of individuals?
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Keep doing as childish reactions of you guys tempt me to expose your own society more.
You must be hitting the pipe on a regular basis if you think you are exposing anything other than your own ignorance and bigotry.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
your own ignorance and bigotry.
If exposing something is ignorance and bigotry then I am afraid we all are suffering from it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I
If you read I am not targeting you as individual since SB members don't consist of you only.
-
Ro0ke wrote:
Taking a life is murder, but that's not the issue. The issue is when life begins.
No, that's the distraction that pro-abortionists use to pretend we don't know when an individual human life begins. edit: I think this is will be where a pro-abortionist will imagine that the fact of miscarriages ... and of twins ... somehow means that abortion is not the deliberate killing of an innocent human life: bluntly, murder.
-
led mike wrote:
Yes the abortion issue is as simple as murder
When did murder become simple? Was there a memo?
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Can't take it when it's directed at your country and culture, huh? Tsk, tsk...
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
it seems growing age making you blind as well. If you are suffering from "thread-blindness" then not my fault. I actually answer that Illion guy[or girl]. I am bored of responding your infant answers to me[or anyone else]
-
No, you are not dragging me into another retarded conversation about abortion where your premise is that the life of the mother is not relevant to the overall issue. And for the record RoOke is wrong. When it's life is not at all part of the issue. Consider it life from the moment the sperm start swimming. It has nothing to do with the fact that there are two lives involved in the issue, not just one. Well actually that doesn't make sense since you have to consider the fetus a life to have the issue involve two lives, but anyway I think you should get my point.
led mike
-
led mike wrote:
How do we know what specific rights need to be codified?
The ones which are not specifically defined in the actual text of the constitution. You know, the ones which the actual text of the constituion specifically leaves up to the states and to the people.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
You know, the ones which the actual text of the constituion specifically leaves up to the states and to the people.
So that means all of them? You think we can codify all our rights? Or do you mean that if they are not codified then we don't have them? So if it has not been specifically written that I have the right walk around on my hands then I don't have that right?
led mike
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
that came out from your womb? Idiot! opposing something is healthy
Ah! So blowing up other people's children is Good and Right and Totally Islamicly Proper... but killing your own is taboo. Good to know the US doesn't have a monopoly on twisted double-standards... Wait, not good, the other thing, lessee now um... oh yeah: tragic and sad. You are one sick puppy, Adnan.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
You are one sick puppy, Adnan.
Only one can recognize another ;). Shog, Keep Shagging!
-
Well hell, if I'd have known you had the power to decide when life begins, I never would have made that statement. You should probably let the world know your final decision so they can clear up the whole abortion issue.
I'm trying but I can only type so fast. :) Just in case your interested, and remember Stan was talking to me, my POV has nothing to do with when the fetus is life. My POV stipulates that the fetus is always life, period. When I said you were wrong I meant wrong in what my perspective is since you replied to Stans post to me.
led mike
-
Shog9 wrote:
You are one sick puppy, Adnan.
Only one can recognize another ;). Shog, Keep Shagging!
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Shog, Keep Shagging!
:laugh: WTF?!!? :laugh:
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
I'm trying but I can only type so fast. :) Just in case your interested, and remember Stan was talking to me, my POV has nothing to do with when the fetus is life. My POV stipulates that the fetus is always life, period. When I said you were wrong I meant wrong in what my perspective is since you replied to Stans post to me.
led mike
-
Are you joking? She's an infidel!
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Shog, Keep Shagging!
:laugh: WTF?!!? :laugh:
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
She's an infidel!
To be serious for a moment, she probably isnt. (If she is a Christian she isnt an Infidel in Islam)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
No, in that case she's a dhimmi. And that means that she's still a lesser individual.
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
your own ignorance and bigotry.
If exposing something is ignorance and bigotry then I am afraid we all are suffering from it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I
If you read I am not targeting you as individual since SB members don't consist of you only.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
If exposing something is ignorance and bigotry then I am afraid we all are suffering from it.
Yes. Exactly. What you routinely expose is your ignorance and bigotry, and we are all suffering from it. Congratulations. Recognizing you have a problem is the first step to a cure.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
If you read I am not targeting you as individual since SB members don't consist of you only.
I do read, and, as your reply was to me, you were obviously including me in the group. I was merely stating that you should not include me as part of the group that makes sweeping generalizations about Islam and its believers. If you truly meant all members of the SoapBox, you were including yourself, and either being unusually honest, or an idiot. Guess which one my money's on.