(03-16-2013 03:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hey STALKER.

What part of this:

I just can't make that decision for OTHERS!


Do we not understand? Real simple question. You may be fine with it, I'm not, this is still America 1st amendment and all. I have the right to advocate that without being called a murderer.

Except when they own a business and don't want to provide Birth controll... Then it's *TOTALLY* your decision... Your every bit as inconsistent as one can expect a liberal to be..

(03-16-2013 03:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hey STALKER.

What part of this:

I just can't make that decision for OTHERS!


Do we not understand? Real simple question. You may be fine with it, I'm not, this is still America 1st amendment and all. I have the right to advocate that without being called a murderer.

LOL your first amendment right to advocate for murder does not negate mine to call you out on it!

Riggghhhttttt. Listen Zealot. Your argument holds no water and it is based on inconsistencies. You are an anchor on the Republican party and they will soon tire of you if they haven't already. They tolerated you when the political calculus worked for them. That is all changing. Trust me. You and your intolerant ilk of black and white in a grey world will be kicked to the curb without a home and the ratings bomb will be point for point. That I promise.

(03-16-2013 03:24 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Riggghhhttttt. Listen Zealot. Your argument holds no water and it is based on inconsistencies. You are an anchor on the Republican party and they will soon tire of you if they haven't already. They tolerated you when the political calculus worked for them. That is all changing. Trust me. You and your intolerant ilk of black and white in a grey world will be kicked to the curb without a home and the ratings bomb will be point for point. That I promise.

My argument is life begins at conception and all humans deserve the same rights... Yea clearly that holds no water.

Your argument is murder it ok until the baby passes through the magical vajayjay and when pressed your examples were the disabled which fits into the initial plans of planned parenthood. To eliminate undesirable people.

You can yell zealot all you want, it does not change the monstrous position that ignores murder "because its not my business"..

As to the calculus.. I don't rely on others to tell me what right but looking at the population at large. I don't care if I am the last person on earth who thinks the unborn demands protection. I need none who agree for comfort and will not relent no matter who many monsters and cowards like you exit.

Most of the above is why I took a Bortz. Nothing useful comes from this never ending argument.

(03-16-2013 02:50 PM)jh Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 02:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Poltical. Read the tea leaves and saw it advantageous to switch.

Which is worse, switching for political reasons or switching for narcissistic ones? I'd go with political. Even if narcissistic decisions leave much to be desired, they still require a level of courage that political decisions don't.

Decisions should already be made taking into account what if your son or daughter told you that.
Shouldn't be a thought changer.

(03-16-2013 05:30 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 02:50 PM)jh Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 02:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Poltical. Read the tea leaves and saw it advantageous to switch.

Which is worse, switching for political reasons or switching for narcissistic ones? I'd go with political. Even if narcissistic decisions leave much to be desired, they still require a level of courage that political decisions don't.

Decisions should already be made taking into account what if your son or daughter told you that.
Shouldn't be a thought changer.

Ideally. But there is a big difference between "what I would think if that happened" and "well that happened." He might have very well thought that it wouldn't matter to him. Until it became real and actually did.

Decisions should also be made without taking into account the politics of the situation. I have more respect for someone who changes his position because of new experiences than for someone who changes his position because the polls are now going the other way.

(03-16-2013 08:48 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Fo- good points and that should carry on into the family planning discussion also. It just runs so counter to the Liberty part of the message. Don't tread on me. Keep your hands off my ovaries! That kind of deal.

Yeah, keep your hands off my ovaries but you damn well better pay to prevent what comes out of em.

As for Portman's switch, meh. Whatever.

If any of my kids were gay I still wouldn't support gay marriage. It's a matter of faith to me, not politics.

(03-16-2013 05:55 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:48 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Fo- good points and that should carry on into the family planning discussion also. It just runs so counter to the Liberty part of the message. Don't tread on me. Keep your hands off my ovaries! That kind of deal.

Yeah, keep your hands off my ovaries but you damn well better pay to prevent what comes out of em.

As for Portman's switch, meh. Whatever.

If any of my kids were gay I still wouldn't support gay marriage. It's a matter of faith to me, not politics.

So you are basing your opinion entirely on faith/religion?

(03-16-2013 05:39 PM)jh Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 05:30 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 02:50 PM)jh Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 02:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Poltical. Read the tea leaves and saw it advantageous to switch.

Which is worse, switching for political reasons or switching for narcissistic ones? I'd go with political. Even if narcissistic decisions leave much to be desired, they still require a level of courage that political decisions don't.

Decisions should already be made taking into account what if your son or daughter told you that.
Shouldn't be a thought changer.

Ideally. But there is a big difference between "what I would think if that happened" and "well that happened." He might have very well thought that it wouldn't matter to him. Until it became real and actually did.

Decisions should also be made without taking into account the politics of the situation. I have more respect for someone who changes his position because of new experiences than for someone who changes his position because the polls are now going the other way.

As with any issue dealing with personal liberty. All I have to do is ask myself one question. Is the principle of non aggression being violated in this situation?

Now before someone decides to throw the abortion issue in my face, I will quickly explain my position. Killing of viable human violates that principle. I will not comment further than that.

slavery : 19th century = abortion : 21st century

(03-16-2013 06:18 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  So you are basing your opinion entirely on faith/religion?

My opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman? Yes.

Look at all the various ideas and ideals just on this thread. Yet we need a national conclusion. Can see why some politicians have been like ball on paddle.

(03-16-2013 07:06 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  slavery : 19th century = abortion : 21st century

THIS!

The arguments for Abortion and Slavery were pretty identical

"Keep your morals out of my rights"
"If you don't like it don't do it"

(03-16-2013 07:11 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Look at all the various ideas and ideals just on this thread. Yet we need a national conclusion. Can see why some politicians have been like ball on paddle.

The ball and paddle test should be a disqualifier...

Obama went pro gay marriage - anti gay marraige - pro gay marriage..
Romney went pro choice - pro life

It's pretty much a given that one should not vote for either.

(03-16-2013 08:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 07:06 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  slavery : 19th century = abortion : 21st century

THIS!

The arguments for Abortion and Slavery were pretty identical

"Keep your morals out of my rights"
"If you don't like it don't do it"

I can see that...except that the slaves were already out of the womb.

(03-16-2013 08:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 07:06 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  slavery : 19th century = abortion : 21st century

THIS!

The arguments for Abortion and Slavery were pretty identical

"Keep your morals out of my rights"
"If you don't like it don't do it"

I can see that...except that the slaves were already out of the womb.

Only matters from the perspective of when life begins. If that is the point of the debate it can be polite ad productive...

Any other way just leads to crap..

(03-16-2013 08:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 07:06 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  slavery : 19th century = abortion : 21st century

THIS!

The arguments for Abortion and Slavery were pretty identical

"Keep your morals out of my rights"
"If you don't like it don't do it"

I can see that...except that the slaves were already out of the womb.

Only matters from the perspective of when life begins. If that is the point of the debate it can be polite ad productive...

Any other way just leads to crap..

We are in total agreement.

So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

(03-16-2013 08:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So the decepticons b1tch when babies come into this world that people can't afford, so the government has to support them. Then they b1tch when the babies are aborted and the government doesn't have to support them.

I mostly ***** about the underlying problem that usually causes both...A GD lack of personal responsibility. But of course...I am way out of line.