An OPP Exchange Over Pro-lIfe (Page 2): You don't even recognize the hypocrisy in that comment, do you?

American Vet

DASHY wrote:

I have no plan to k**l anybody and you are doing the right thing by keeping your gun locked in your safe.

You don't even recognize the hypocrisy in that comment, do you?

archie bunker Loc: Texas

DASHY wrote:

I have no plan to k**l anybody and you are doing the right thing by keeping your gun locked in your safe.

I didn't ask about your plans. You dodged.

Fact is, you support the murder of the unborn.

Nuff said!!

My dog just had puppies. I don't want them. I'm gonna put em in a toe sack, swing it three times, and slam it on the concrete.

I don't want puppies.

DASHY

archie bunker wrote:

I didn't ask about your plans. You dodged.

Fact is, you support the murder of the unborn.

Nuff said!!

My dog just had puppies. I don't want them. I'm gonna put em in a toe sack, swing it three times, and slam it on the concrete.

I don't want puppies.

FYI A******n (pregnancy termination) happens before the dog has puppies. A fetus's right is debatable. A woman's right is not debatable. She wins every time.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

DASHY wrote:

FYI A******n (pregnancy termination) happens before the dog has puppies. A fetus's right is debatable. A woman's right is not debatable. She wins every time.

Again, a statement that makes assertions without a citation of proof. Prove that a fetus has no rights or shouldn't have. There are many lawsuits over injuries to the fetus. Torts law recognizes it.

any rights. A woman, like a man, has a right to engage in activity that can reasonably be expected to result i n pregnancy. Should they engage in that activity, they are responsible for the results.

Is it within the rights of either to not contract a VD?

DASHY

crazylibertarian wrote:

Again, a statement that makes assertions without a citation of proof. Prove that a fetus has no rights or shouldn't have. There are many lawsuits over injuries to the fetus. Torts law recognizes it.

any rights. A woman, like a man, has a right to engage in activity that can reasonably be expected to result i n pregnancy. Should they engage in that activity, they are responsible for the results.

Is it within the rights of either to not contract a VD?

To avoid contracting VD, do not have sex with an infected person. Sex can lead to pregnancy. The man can walk away. The woman gets to decide what to do about it.

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

archie bunker wrote:

I didn't ask about your plans. You dodged.

Fact is, you support the murder of the unborn.

Nuff said!!

My dog just had puppies. I don't want them. I'm gonna put em in a toe sack, swing it three times, and slam it on the concrete.

I don't want puppies.

You wouldn't be the first. Pups are easier to adopt. Lots of pre-adolescent and teen age children in foster homes. Where are all you right-to-life protesters?

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

crazylibertarian wrote:

Again, a statement that makes assertions without a citation of proof. Prove that a fetus has no rights or shouldn't have. There are many lawsuits over injuries to the fetus. Torts law recognizes it.

any rights. A woman, like a man, has a right to engage in activity that can reasonably be expected to result i n pregnancy. Should they engage in that activity, they are responsible for the results.

Is it within the rights of either to not contract a VD?

Prove the fetus wants to live in this crazy world? A dumb argument

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Tiptop789 wrote:

Prove the fetus wants to live in this crazy world? A dumb argument

I am under no obligation to respond to you but again challenge you to debate the science.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

DASHY wrote:

To avoid contracting VD, do not have sex with an infected person. Sex can lead to pregnancy. The man can walk away. The woman gets to decide what to do about it.

And it's marriage that protects the woman from the man walking away.

Disprove that.

Roamin' Catholic Loc: luxurious exile

crazylibertarian wrote:

Pro Life v. Pro Death are NOT beside the point; they are essential to whether Roe Vs. Wade was valid. The decision appalled even some pro-a******n constitutional scholars. The question is does the fetus have any rights. I believe it does.

I too believe the pre-born have rights and that they should be treated as persons. I recently saw a bumper sticker advocating for legal "personhood " for the pre-born. I shall investigate this further.

It is also noteworthy that the term "pre-born " was used. The term "unborn " seems negative to me and "fetus " sounds dehumanizing.

Not to criticize anyone using these terms, I'm just saying.

Perhaps the recognition of personhood for the pre-born will be the undoing of the culture of death.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

DASHY wrote:

FYI A******n (pregnancy termination) happens before the dog has puppies. A fetus's right is debatable. A woman's right is not debatable. She wins every time.

A woman's right to k**l?

If a life ends when a heartbeat stops, when does it begin?

DASHY

Roamin' Catholic wrote:

I too believe the pre-born have rights and that th... (show quote)

The words "unborn" and "fetus" sound negative and dehumanizing because they are intended to sound that way by the so-called "pro-lifers." They hope the fear of the "culture of death" will urge us to believe that the federal government intrusion on the lives of women will somehow help improve the lives of all Americans. Stupid reasoning! Pro life movements should aim to help all people, not just the questionable future life of a "pre-born."

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

DASHY wrote:

The words "unborn" and "fetus" sound negative and dehumanizing because they are intended to sound that way by the so-called "pro-lifers." They hope the fear of the "culture of death" will urge us to believe that the federal government intrusion on the lives of women will somehow help improve the lives of all Americans. Stupid reasoning! Pro life movements should aim to help all people, not just the questionable future life of a "pre-born."

Pro-lifers do try to help everyone DASHY. To suggest otherwise is a myth propagated by pro-deathers

An embryo becomes a fetus at about 10 weeks by which point a heart beat has been detectable for about 4 weeks.

A newborn baby turns to parents' voices rather than strange ones, indicating that it has already learned something.

DASHY

crazylibertarian wrote:

Pro-lifers do try to help everyone DASHY. To suggest otherwise is a myth propagated by pro-deathers

An embryo becomes a fetus at about 10 weeks by which point a heart beat has been detectable for about 4 weeks.

A newborn baby turns to parents' voices rather than strange ones, indicating that it has already learned something.

By using the term pro-deathers you must be thinking about the attitude of the Trump cult members who attacked us on J****** 6th at the capitol in Washington. Did you learn something from the Roe v. Wade decision? Government intrusion on a woman's rights to privacy will not be tolerated. The political debate continues for 50 years. Nobody really cares about the outcome of a woman's pregnancy. The important thing is to keep the dialogue going for political purposes.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

DASHY wrote:

By using the term pro-deathers you must be thinking about the attitude of the Trump cult members who attacked us on J****** 6th at the capitol in Washington. Did you learn something from the Roe v. Wade decision? Government intrusion on a woman's rights to privacy will not be tolerated. The political debate continues for 50 years. Nobody really cares about the outcome of a woman's pregnancy. The important thing is to keep the dialogue going for political purposes.

More deflection, and ignoring science.