Thread Closed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
but I think she will...must...have the legal option to abort without anyone else's consent or moderation on the issue. I consider anything else a form of rape against the woman, regardless. For better or worse, it is her right.
Hang on a minute. In order for her to abort someone has to do the procedure for her. It's not physically possible for the woman to abort herself. This isn't about just the woman having a right to choose. This is about her choosing to hand over $xxx+ and saying "kill my baby". Barring medical emergencies, what makes this any different from a paid hitman or being a accomplice to murder?
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
You won't read the words of the Authors, because you can understand it just fine, but now, you can't understand
I understand the words of the Second Amendment just fine. I just don't understand the logic of those who only use part of that amendment and use it out of context of the rest of the amendment. Kind of like taking a Bible verse by itself and using it to justify one's own agenda instead of taking it in context with the surrounding scripture.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
Hang on a minute. In order for her to abort someone has to do the procedure for her. It's not physically possible for the woman to abort herself. This isn't about just the woman having a right to choose. This is about her choosing to hand over $xxx+ and saying "kill my baby". Barring medical emergencies, what makes this any different from a paid hitman or being a accomplice to murder?
Murder is an unlawful killing. Plus, it is the killing of a distinct human being. Before a certain point, I don't think you can call what will emerge to be a human a human.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
Murder is an unlawful killing. Plus, it is the killing of a distinct
human being. Before a certain point, I don't think you can call what will emerge to be a human a human.
This is why it is a futile endeavor to argue with someone who will attempt to justify murder; especially when states like New York and Virginia have passed legislation that allows a newborn to be set aside while the mother decides whether or not she wants to kill it (completely legal under Roe v Wade and with respects to the state’s rights under the 10th Amendment).

The only question is how far are you going to let people willing to kill a baby go in determining when it is your turn to go after instituting National Single Payer Healthcare.

.
 
Last edited:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I understand the words of the Second Amendment just fine. I just don't understand the logic of those who only use part of that amendment and use it out of context of the rest of the amendment. Kind of like taking a Bible verse by itself and using it to justify one's own agenda instead of taking it in context with the surrounding scripture.
But what you're saying is that the Government's failure to 'live up' to whatever ideal or method of 'militia coordination' you feel they should have continued with, is now the justification to take away my right to defend myself against them? That's the kind of bass ackwards logic that can only be learned in a Government school. See how convenient that is? Taxpayer funded indoctrination.

Problem, reaction, solution. The Hegelian Dialectic.

Create a problem - Mass Shootings. Guaranteed to cause a reaction - Outrage. Magnify the problem and outrage by targeting those deemed more 'vulnerable' than others or more prone to be the 'target of hate'. Maybe some gay people in Orlando, some little kids in Sandy Hook, Batman fans in Aurora, how about some teenagers in Florida who can later be propped up to 'sell' the outrage and promote the 'solution' narrative on social media platforms employing customized algorithms that push the 'outrage' and promote the approved 'solution'. Let's demonize guns to the point of suspending 5 year olds for the way they eat their Pop-Tarts.

Hold on though. The fake, phony, and false, Russian collusion thing is about to blow up. Let's stage a 'hate' crime starring a gay black actor who will cry on TV and blame white MAGA supporters. "Nothing like a nice race war to jump start my friend Kamela's Presidential campaign."

Unfortunately, the Mueller Report didn't hit last Friday like it was 'supposed' to. NZ was such a perfect set-up. Muslims, first person video, female lawmakers ready to 'connect' with the moms, especially those virtuous single ones, while silently demonizing men.

The NZ PM right there, ready with 'new' gun confiscation legislation. Dianne Feinstein ready to push the outrage and prepared solution here at home, "Targeted Muslims. Trump! Trump! Trump! Think of the children! Trump! Trump! Trump! How many more? Trump! Trump! Trump! We need to follow NZ's lead! Trump! Trump! Trump!" "Confiscate! Confiscate! Confiscate! Disarm! Disarm! Disarm! Control! Control! Control!"

The sheeple now agree. "Take our guns! Pass more laws! Take our Liberty! Restrict our Freedoms! Repeal our God given Rights!" "Tell us what speech is acceptable! Tell us what thoughts are crimes!" "Tell us that sin is virtue, that killing is protecting life!" "We trust in you, oh wise Government. We trust in you, our corporate masters. We trust in you, our teachers of indoctrination. We trust in you, our pushers of propaganda. We trust in you, our honest, benevolent, selfless, elected leaders." "We trust in you, and only you, to protect us from ... you."

How many of the shooters used to be 'on the radar', but then deemed 'not a risk?" How many were in 'therapy' and on 'prescribed' psychotropic drugs? How many were 'troubled' 'former' military or 'former' special ops? How many incidents had initial reports of multiple shooters but ended up a 'lone gunman'?

David Hogg - Parkland, Florida school shooting 'survivor', turned gun control activist. Father - Former FBI agent. Mother - NBC news. Coincidence, I'm sure.
2 other Parkland shooting 'survivors' dead from 'apparent suicide' just this week. Coincidence, I'm sure.
John Podesta in NZ just days before the mosque shooting for a 'Global Progressives Event", calls NZ "a juicy target." Coincidence, I'm sure.
Adam Lanza's therapist (Sandy Hook) just arrested upon returning to the US after practicing in NZ for the last several years. Coincidence, I'm sure.

And we wonder why they're winning. Sheeple indeed.
 
Last edited:

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
This is why it is a futile endeavor to argue with someone who will attempt to justify murder; especially when states like New York and Virginia have passed legislation that allows a newborn to be set aside while the mother decides whether or not she wants to kill it (completely legal under Roe v Wade and with respects to the state’s rights under the 10th Amendment).

The only question is how far are you going to let people willing to kill a baby go in determining when it is your turn to go after instituting National Single Payer Healthcare.
Well...you keep calling it murder because you want to only see extreme evil in the act. You keep using a term that doesn't apply because you want to drag this into moral sentimentalism. Throwing red paint as it were. It's all opinions anyway. What do I expect of legislation in the future if your willing to stick your holy heads up someone else's womb and bark demands?
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Well...you keep calling it murder because you want to only see extreme evil in the act. You keep using a term that doesn't apply because you want to drag this into moral sentimentalism. Throwing red paint as it were. It's all opinions anyway. What do I expect of legislation in the future if your willing to stick your holy heads up someone else's womb and bark demands?
You keep calling it everything but murder, because you want a quick and easy way out of any potential 'problem' you might create. You keep using a term that avoids the truth, because you don't want to be held morally accountable. What should I expect of legislation in the future if you're unwilling to keep your slimy dick out of someone else's womb and dump your semen inside?

Back in the day, many 'pagan' cultures would go to the temple to 'worship' their gods by participating in drunken, wild, sex orgies. Then 9 months later they would go 'worship' another god by 'offering' up their unwanted babies as a 'sacrifice'.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9
Same gods, same worship, same sacrifice. Only the names have changed. Our gods are now Freedom, Liberty, and Choice. Our temples called Tinder, Grinder, and Backpage. Our sacrifices now offered at the alter of Planned Parenthood complete with Government funding to support the priests of death.

Same old lie from the father of lies. "Did God really say? For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Eyes open, yet blind as bats.
 
Last edited:

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
Well...you keep calling it murder because you want to only see extreme evil in the act. You keep using a term that doesn't apply because you want to drag this into moral sentimentalism. Throwing red paint as it were. It's all opinions anyway. What do I expect of legislation in the future if your willing to stick your holy heads up someone else's womb and bark demands?
Killing a live baby after birth is murder no matter how you slice it nit-wit (even a coroner would list the cause of death a homicide by law) ... But there is no need in arguing it with me, because I fully understand you lack the moral aptitude necessary to make a sensible argument.

Edit:
For clarification ... Whenever the actions of one person directly lead to the death of another living person, it is considered a “homocide”. It doesn’t matter if it is justified (like a cop shooting an armed perpetrator), or negligent (like leaving a newborn baby to die on its own).

And ... According to the Unborn Victims Act 2004 (United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes)) ... Even in states like California, if a perpetrator kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged with two counts of “Capital Murder”.

You can call it whatever you want, or whine about whatever you want to call it, but the law identifies it as murder whether or not you think it should be legal.

.
 
Last edited:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
And ... According to the Unborn Victims Act 2004 (United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes)) ... Even in states like California, if a perpetrator kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged with two counts of “Capital Murder”.

You can call it whatever you want, or whine about whatever you want to call it, but the law identifies it as murder whether or not you think it should be legal.
No longer. Thanks to the new New York law,
"Queens district attorney, Richard A. Brown, cited the Reproductive Health Act as the reason for dropping an abortion charge against a man who the police say fatally stabbed his former girlfriend when she was 14 weeks pregnant. Prosecutors dropped a second-degree abortion charge after learning that the Reproductive Health Act, which was signed on Jan. 22, had stripped the crime from the state penal code."
Such is the nature of the slippery slope.

Pretty convenient though. A man no longer needs a woman's consent to perform an abortion on her. Just don't kill her and what's the worst they've got? Aggravated assault? If your only intent is to kill the baby and you only succeed in doing that, I don't even see an attempted murder charge. No intent. "But I only wanted to kill the baby, your honor. I never wanted to kill my girlfriend. I love her." They pretty much got zip.

"My body, my choice!" Apparently, not anymore.
 
Last edited:

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
No longer. Thanks to the new New York law,

Such is the nature of the slippery slope.
The New York law is not as slippery as it may seem (at least until someone finds grounds to challenge it in court).

Roe v Wade simply forbids states from making abortion illegal altogether. It still doesn’t supersede the individual states’ 10th Amendment rights to govern how they care to govern abortion in their state.

Because the fruitloops in New York and Virginia exercise their state’s rights doesn’t mean it matters to anyone else, nor does it set precedence outside the state.

Pretty much everyone knows where New York is headed, bless their precious little hearts. I mean look at the fact they want to support the Green New Deal and get rid of the Electoral College.

Wonder when it is going to dawn on them they don’t have enough room in the state, much less Manhattan, to grow their own food or put up enough solar panels/windmills to power their extravagances.

.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
You keep calling it everything but murder, because you want a quick and easy way out of any potential 'problem' you might create. You keep using a term that avoids the truth, because you don't want to be held morally accountable. What should I expect of legislation in the future if you're unwilling to keep your slimy dick out of someone else's womb and dump your semen inside?

Back in the day, many 'pagan' cultures would go to the temple to 'worship' their gods by participating in drunken, wild, sex orgies. Then 9 months later they would go 'worship' another god by 'offering' up their unwanted babies as a 'sacrifice'.

Same gods, same worship, same sacrifice. Only the names have changed. Our gods are now Freedom, Liberty, and Choice. Our temples called Tinder, Grinder, and Backpage. Our sacrifices now offered at the alter of Planned Parenthood complete with Government funding to support the priests of death.

Same old lie from the father of lies. "Did God really say? For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Eyes open, yet blind as bats.
More preaching... The historical source of reasonable opinions.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
It means there seems to be no point to this debate since we are just batting about opinions.

Classic "right" vs "wrong" ...and you seem to slide into literal preacher-mode a little too often.
No, it's actually the classic "truth" vs Truth.

I get it, I was there. When I was in college, screwing around and a proud, self-proclaimed, "atheist", I was a big fan of abortion. I knew all the buzzwords, could argue the rationalizations, and spout it all off at the drop of a hat. It helped me get laid a lot, but I knew my support of abortion was a position of convenience. It was my last ditch, push comes to shove, way-out should my lifestyle choices ever catch up with me.

While I never would have admitted it to anyone at the time, alone in my private thoughts where no one else gets to listen, I never once thought abortion was right. Not "right" in a morally subjective way, but Right in a 'Standard of the Universe' way. I didn't need God to get there, simple logic was enough.

The Logic - When a sperm and egg unite, from the very moment self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable, cell division begins, there is life. Not morally, subjectively "life", but scientifically, objectively, inarguably, life. This self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable, cell-division is the very thing that scientifically, objectively, inarguably, distinguishes organic matter, matter that's alive, from inorganic matter, or matter that is not alive.

Pretty simple. Scientifically, objectively, inarguably, once the self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable, cell division, chain-reaction begins, it's scientifically, objectively, inarguably, alive. Once alive, nothing can stop the self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable, cell division, chain-reaction except the removal of life. Why? Because once the self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable, cell division, chain-reaction ceases, it is scientifically, objectively, inarguably, dead.

Are there natural processes that can happen inside a woman's body that can cause things to go wrong? Sure. But let's be clear. Something goes wrong. Not morally, subjectively "wrong", but scientifically, objectively, inarguably, wrong. How do we know? Because if everything goes not morally, subjectively "right", but scientifically, objectively, inarguably, right, about nine months from the very moment that self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable chain-reaction of life began, we'll welcome the baby into the world.

Let's also not get caught up in the number of cells early in development, that's irrelevant in regards to the definition of life. An amoeba is a single cell animal. It's alive. When it ceases to be alive, it's dead. For an amoeba or anything else, there are only two causes of death. It was either killed, or it died of natural causes. That is not morally, subjective, emotionally charged language, it's scientific, objective, inarguable fact. Something either dies on it's own, or it's killed by an outside force.

Also, scientifically, objectively, inarguably, just like the amoeba, a human being is there since the moment it sparks to life, because scientifically, objectively, inarguably, from the moment self-generated, self-regulated, uncontrollable cell division begins, that life cannot be anything other than, scientifically, objectively, inarguably, a human being. That "genetic material' or 'clump of cells', 'zygote', 'fetus', or whatever euphemism you want to use, is at no time anything other than, scientifically, objectively, inarguably, 100% a human being. No morality needed, just objective, inarguable, scientific, genetic, biology.

In fact, the only time subjective morality starts to get injected into the issue is when you want to argue life does NOT begin at conception, or it's NOT a human being. Say it all you want, but you're then a science denier. You're saying, "Nope, sorry. I don't like your definition of life, or what defines a human being, so I'm making up my own."

Now I ask you, with the definition of life being the epitome of settled science, used without question since the beginning of time, what would suddenly cause a person, society, or nation to redefine what is life in this one specific instance and this one specific instance only? Que bono? Who benefits?

As far as moral relevancy, as much as I love both puppies and babies, it doesn't take even a second of thought to instinctively know that only one of those two is worth protecting to the point of my own death. Hint: Not the puppy. Even if it were my puppy and your baby.

Once you inject moral relevancy into the equation, it's then all a matter of agreement. Once we agree 'they' gotta go, off they go.

The natural end result of a culture unwilling or unable to control it's sexual lusts is unwanted children and lots of them. As such, we will always find a way to dispose of them. Once we've grown accustomed to disposing of our children, we then set our sights on the sick and the elderly, once we're used to that, who's next?

My bet is you'll vote for the Christians. Seeing how we can get all preachy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.