The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-26-2021 08:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 10:57 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 02:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 01:43 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 11:53 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Republicans would have a much better point if they were actually pro-life instead of just pro-birth.

Democrats, Libertarians and all stripes have an equal bite at the apple.

But to engage and have a conversation ... what do you suggest or imply?

They don't seem to care what happens to people after they're born. The only thing that matters is money. There's no money for food stamps, mental health, medical care, or social services or anything like that - but there's $750 billion in the budget for the military every year which still isn't enough. But there's money enough to give tax cuts to large corporations and billionaires. They will complain about 4 people dead in Benghazi but completely ignore the thousands of American lives lost in Iraq (and probably tens of thousands of serious injuries) and thousands of Iraqi lives - on false pretenses. They pretend racism doesn't exist. They'd rather tear children away from their parents at the border, then treat them like humans. It seems that until many Republicans (not all of them obviously) have something affect them personally, it isn't a problem. E.g. somebody in their own family comes out as gay - NOW they will support gay rights. But until then, no.

I think I understand what you're trying to say ... that the irony is some who are pro-life (birth) are less than supportive to that life after birth (your list of examples). Which is rather ironic and hypocritical. Do I understand correctly?

That's all I'm really saying (probably not very well). Particularly when people say they're Christian, much of the behavior seems rather callous to me.

Ok. So the irony of professing a stand but not living out (in other ways). Sounds pretty human to me.

But I have a question ... how similar is taking the positions you'd advocate as better than the hypocrite Christian Republicans (your categorization) and then be in favor of partial birth abortion, aborting for gender selection or avoid having a child with a birth defect any less in conflict? Do you see the irony there?

Quote: Sounds pretty human to me.

What do you mean?

(01-26-2021 10:40 PM)MidwayIcer Wrote:  

Quote: Sounds pretty human to me.

What do you mean?

DB good to have you back. Welcome and come on out of the shadows.

Read my last response to NIU and you tell me. Not difficult.

(01-25-2021 01:24 PM)FortWorthRaider Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 12:24 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 10:41 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Broncos and Boca Rocket,
To quote Vice-President Harris; "How many laws have been passed regarding men's health or bodies"?

Men's Health Act of 2006 is one.

At what point does a mother's reproductive rights supercede a developing child's?
African Americans make up about 13.5% of the US
population yet account for 36.5% of abortions.
Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Excuse me Jim, your Crow is showing.

Got the wrong guy. I'm for rebuilding the inner cities,
better housing,real jobs, etc. My church is basically Habitat for Humanity in Broward County. Also involved in providing clothing and food for those in need.Thinking about getting involved with public school systems in at least a monetary way.

(01-26-2021 07:49 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 08:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 10:57 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 02:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 01:43 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  Democrats, Libertarians and all stripes have an equal bite at the apple.

But to engage and have a conversation ... what do you suggest or imply?

They don't seem to care what happens to people after they're born. The only thing that matters is money. There's no money for food stamps, mental health, medical care, or social services or anything like that - but there's $750 billion in the budget for the military every year which still isn't enough. But there's money enough to give tax cuts to large corporations and billionaires. They will complain about 4 people dead in Benghazi but completely ignore the thousands of American lives lost in Iraq (and probably tens of thousands of serious injuries) and thousands of Iraqi lives - on false pretenses. They pretend racism doesn't exist. They'd rather tear children away from their parents at the border, then treat them like humans. It seems that until many Republicans (not all of them obviously) have something affect them personally, it isn't a problem. E.g. somebody in their own family comes out as gay - NOW they will support gay rights. But until then, no.

I think I understand what you're trying to say ... that the irony is some who are pro-life (birth) are less than supportive to that life after birth (your list of examples). Which is rather ironic and hypocritical. Do I understand correctly?

That's all I'm really saying (probably not very well). Particularly when people say they're Christian, much of the behavior seems rather callous to me.

Ok. So the irony of professing a stand but not living out (in other ways). Sounds pretty human to me.

But I have a question ... how similar is taking the positions you'd advocate as better than the hypocrite Christian Republicans (your categorization) and then be in favor of partial birth abortion, aborting for gender selection or avoid having a child with a birth defect any less in conflict? Do you see the irony there?

The problem is the pro-birth people don't stop there. They want NO abortions, for any reason. At least that's what the states keep pushing for.

And I would say a woman wanting to decide what to do with her own body, rather than having the state decide, is pretty human too.

(01-27-2021 08:26 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 01:24 PM)FortWorthRaider Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 12:24 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 10:41 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Broncos and Boca Rocket,
To quote Vice-President Harris; "How many laws have been passed regarding men's health or bodies"?

Men's Health Act of 2006 is one.

At what point does a mother's reproductive rights supercede a developing child's?
African Americans make up about 13.5% of the US
population yet account for 36.5% of abortions.
Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Excuse me Jim, your Crow is showing.

Got the wrong guy. I'm for rebuilding the inner cities,
better housing,real jobs, etc. My church is basically Habitat for Humanity in Broward County. Also involved in providing clothing and food for those in need.Thinking about getting involved with public school systems in at least a monetary way.

When he has to tell you that......

(01-27-2021 11:39 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 07:49 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 08:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 10:57 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 02:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  They don't seem to care what happens to people after they're born. The only thing that matters is money. There's no money for food stamps, mental health, medical care, or social services or anything like that - but there's $750 billion in the budget for the military every year which still isn't enough. But there's money enough to give tax cuts to large corporations and billionaires. They will complain about 4 people dead in Benghazi but completely ignore the thousands of American lives lost in Iraq (and probably tens of thousands of serious injuries) and thousands of Iraqi lives - on false pretenses. They pretend racism doesn't exist. They'd rather tear children away from their parents at the border, then treat them like humans. It seems that until many Republicans (not all of them obviously) have something affect them personally, it isn't a problem. E.g. somebody in their own family comes out as gay - NOW they will support gay rights. But until then, no.

I think I understand what you're trying to say ... that the irony is some who are pro-life (birth) are less than supportive to that life after birth (your list of examples). Which is rather ironic and hypocritical. Do I understand correctly?

That's all I'm really saying (probably not very well). Particularly when people say they're Christian, much of the behavior seems rather callous to me.

Ok. So the irony of professing a stand but not living out (in other ways). Sounds pretty human to me.

But I have a question ... how similar is taking the positions you'd advocate as better than the hypocrite Christian Republicans (your categorization) and then be in favor of partial birth abortion, aborting for gender selection or avoid having a child with a birth defect any less in conflict? Do you see the irony there?

The problem is the pro-birth people don't stop there. They want NO abortions, for any reason. At least that's what the states keep pushing for.

And I would say a woman wanting to decide what to do with her own body, rather than having the state decide, is pretty human too.

Would ANY reason be justifiable as opposed to NO abortions? I listed 3 more popularly trending reasons.

I agree that a woman or a man (to be fair) should be able to decide what to do with their own body.

But a woman doesn't have the same DNA as their unborn child. Two separate entities. Unlike removing a kidney, gall bladder, etc. The fetus has its own identity. At a crime scene if they have evidence based on DNA they have their person.

Does it matter if an abortion is of another person and not simply deciding what to do with ones own body?

President Biden on "women's health"

(01-28-2021 04:58 PM)ess Wrote:  President Biden on "women's health"

I’m thinking President Kamala by 2022.

(01-28-2021 05:05 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  

(01-28-2021 04:58 PM)ess Wrote:  President Biden on "women's health"

I’m thinking President Kamala by 2022.

The orange idiot is regularly soiling himself in public, tripping up ramps, struggling to drink water, I don't like his chances of being able to run, let alone mount a campaign by 2022.

(01-27-2021 10:40 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-27-2021 11:39 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 07:49 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 08:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-25-2021 10:57 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  I think I understand what you're trying to say ... that the irony is some who are pro-life (birth) are less than supportive to that life after birth (your list of examples). Which is rather ironic and hypocritical. Do I understand correctly?

That's all I'm really saying (probably not very well). Particularly when people say they're Christian, much of the behavior seems rather callous to me.

Ok. So the irony of professing a stand but not living out (in other ways). Sounds pretty human to me.

But I have a question ... how similar is taking the positions you'd advocate as better than the hypocrite Christian Republicans (your categorization) and then be in favor of partial birth abortion, aborting for gender selection or avoid having a child with a birth defect any less in conflict? Do you see the irony there?

The problem is the pro-birth people don't stop there. They want NO abortions, for any reason. At least that's what the states keep pushing for.

And I would say a woman wanting to decide what to do with her own body, rather than having the state decide, is pretty human too.

Would ANY reason be justifiable as opposed to NO abortions? I listed 3 more popularly trending reasons.

I agree that a woman or a man (to be fair) should be able to decide what to do with their own body.

But a woman doesn't have the same DNA as their unborn child. Two separate entities. Unlike removing a kidney, gall bladder, etc. The fetus has its own identity. At a crime scene if they have evidence based on DNA they have their person.

Does it matter if an abortion is of another person and not simply deciding what to do with ones own body?

Does it matter if she got raped? Does it matter if the fetus is severely damaged and will likely be a vegetable? Who will help the woman support the baby when the medical bills are humongous? Not the Republicans, that's for sure.

Republicans don't believe in sanctity of life. Just sanctity of fetuses.

(02-02-2021 09:11 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-27-2021 10:40 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-27-2021 11:39 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 07:49 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 08:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  That's all I'm really saying (probably not very well). Particularly when people say they're Christian, much of the behavior seems rather callous to me.

Ok. So the irony of professing a stand but not living out (in other ways). Sounds pretty human to me.

But I have a question ... how similar is taking the positions you'd advocate as better than the hypocrite Christian Republicans (your categorization) and then be in favor of partial birth abortion, aborting for gender selection or avoid having a child with a birth defect any less in conflict? Do you see the irony there?

The problem is the pro-birth people don't stop there. They want NO abortions, for any reason. At least that's what the states keep pushing for.

And I would say a woman wanting to decide what to do with her own body, rather than having the state decide, is pretty human too.

Would ANY reason be justifiable as opposed to NO abortions? I listed 3 more popularly trending reasons.

I agree that a woman or a man (to be fair) should be able to decide what to do with their own body.

But a woman doesn't have the same DNA as their unborn child. Two separate entities. Unlike removing a kidney, gall bladder, etc. The fetus has its own identity. At a crime scene if they have evidence based on DNA they have their person.

Does it matter if an abortion is of another person and not simply deciding what to do with ones own body?

Does it matter if she got raped? Does it matter if the fetus is severely damaged and will likely be a vegetable? Who will help the woman support the baby when the medical bills are humongous? Not the Republicans, that's for sure.

Republicans don't believe in sanctity of life. Just sanctity of fetuses.

(02-02-2021 09:11 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-27-2021 10:40 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-27-2021 11:39 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 07:49 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 08:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  That's all I'm really saying (probably not very well). Particularly when people say they're Christian, much of the behavior seems rather callous to me.

Ok. So the irony of professing a stand but not living out (in other ways). Sounds pretty human to me.

But I have a question ... how similar is taking the positions you'd advocate as better than the hypocrite Christian Republicans (your categorization) and then be in favor of partial birth abortion, aborting for gender selection or avoid having a child with a birth defect any less in conflict? Do you see the irony there?

The problem is the pro-birth people don't stop there. They want NO abortions, for any reason. At least that's what the states keep pushing for.

And I would say a woman wanting to decide what to do with her own body, rather than having the state decide, is pretty human too.

Would ANY reason be justifiable as opposed to NO abortions? I listed 3 more popularly trending reasons.

I agree that a woman or a man (to be fair) should be able to decide what to do with their own body.

But a woman doesn't have the same DNA as their unborn child. Two separate entities. Unlike removing a kidney, gall bladder, etc. The fetus has its own identity. At a crime scene if they have evidence based on DNA they have their person.

Does it matter if an abortion is of another person and not simply deciding what to do with ones own body?

Does it matter if she got raped? Does it matter if the fetus is severely damaged and will likely be a vegetable? Who will help the woman support the baby when the medical bills are humongous? Not the Republicans, that's for sure.

Republicans don't believe in sanctity of life. Just sanctity of fetuses.

No question life is complicated. You pose two questions that touch deep emotions, rape and babies with severe health issues. You raise a third question about care for the delivered but severely health compromised baby. I'll pass on the political angle for the moment. But will attempt to come back to that.

So lets go back to the beginning for common ground. In both instances, human life or not?

I understand not viable on its own as it isn't fully developed. Dependent on the life and health of the woman carrying it.