If they’re supported by 90% of the population, why did they not pass in Maine 52-48?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
- Status
If they’re supported by 90% of the population, why did they not pass in Maine 52-48?
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero
Wrong trade proposal. When you agree to mandatory, annual sex ed classes between 6th and 10th grade, that aren't abstinence-only, then maybe you and I can start talking to women about considering some limits on abortion. Until then, vacuum away.
Wrong trade proposal. When you agree to mandatory, annual sex ed classes between 6th and 10th grade, that aren't abstinence-only, then maybe you and I can start talking to women about considering some limits on abortion. Until then, vacuum away.
dave122793
Registered User
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero
Because lawmakers always vote lockstep for what their constituents support
Because lawmakers always vote lockstep for what their constituents support
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero
I’m not opposed to expanded background checks conceptually, but what do you do when someone dies and how do you prove when a gun was transferred if it was done before this law was put in place? I look at this as something that won’t do much to reduce gun deaths and will be a cluster administratively.
I’m not opposed to expanded background checks conceptually, but what do you do when someone dies and how do you prove when a gun was transferred if it was done before this law was put in place? I look at this as something that won’t do much to reduce gun deaths and will be a cluster administratively.
D
Deleted member 3166
Guest
Of course you do.
How acceptable is this?
https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1034509991204421632?s=19
Absolutely not
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero
We don't have to trade. We're going to win on both.
The trade is Childhood's End and finally freeing us from the fundy distortion of our laws and in exchange we let you keep your tax exemptions.
For a while.
We don't have to trade. We're going to win on both.
The trade is Childhood's End and finally freeing us from the fundy distortion of our laws and in exchange we let you keep your tax exemptions.
For a while.
unofan
Well-known member
Would you support a law that requires the father to donate an organ to his child involuntarily, if medically necessary for the survival of the child?
Not part of the original question. Answer mine.
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero
Actually never owned a gun nor will I, but I don't have a problem with it.
But I really wish the buyer now had to go register the weapon similar to had he picked up an old Honda Accord from the guy.
Actually never owned a gun nor will I, but I don't have a problem with it.
But I really wish the buyer now had to go register the weapon similar to had he picked up an old Honda Accord from the guy.
unofan
Well-known member
Compromise is not in your blood. So, no gun control deal. You may put the blood of the murdered on my hands. I'll lay the dismembered body parts of the unborn on yours.
No
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero
And in time, you'll give an unborn fetus the right to vote.
And in time, you'll give an unborn fetus the right to vote.
No. Nice try. They have to reach 16/18 to vote.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero
According to you, I can't adopt kids, I can't get married, I can't kiss my partner in public, and I can't even pee in peace. hell, you seem to think estrogen is a performance enhancing medication that will allow me to clean up in my age group in in the women's division.
So while you're crusading for the unborn... the rest of us can die in a fire, apparently.
According to you, I can't adopt kids, I can't get married, I can't kiss my partner in public, and I can't even pee in peace. hell, you seem to think estrogen is a performance enhancing medication that will allow me to clean up in my age group in in the women's division.
So while you're crusading for the unborn... the rest of us can die in a fire, apparently.
Not me, kimosabe. Now your generalizing.
unofan
Well-known member
You didn't answer my question. Would you support requiring fathers to donate an organ involuntarily if necessary to save the life of his child?
Last 2 letters
ScoobyDoo
NPC
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero
OK, this makes no sense to me. If you believe in the sanctity of life than how is what you wrote congruent? If you are 'requiring' the woman carrying the child, to do so you are forcing her to give part of herself, without choice, to sustain the pregnancy. How is this different than requiring the father to donate an organ to sustain the life? Not flaming here. I can't figure out how you can simply say no to the father when you feel the woman should have no choice.
As to the 'trade' this also makes no sense. If you believe, as a Christian, that abortion is wrong I can get that. I might not agree with your absoluteness (I think prevention is a better way to decrease it happening- like access to free birth control and real education which actually decreases sexual activity) but I can respect it. I do not get the willingness to say it is OK to have no gun control because you want abortion to stop. I cannot see Jesus thinking it was OK to trade one set of lives for another. Reading it again, the Jesus I imagine would be horrified with what you wrote. If you are a Believer then why would you not have belief that advocating for both things would be the correct course?
This is something that really confounds me when people say their religion motivates them to advocate for certain policies. How do you cherry pick saying you can't sanction murder but then write you are OK if people get shot? Why is it OK to tell a woman what to do with her body but it is not OK or not on the radar screen to make it so folk can't kill people who are already born?
OK, this makes no sense to me. If you believe in the sanctity of life than how is what you wrote congruent? If you are 'requiring' the woman carrying the child, to do so you are forcing her to give part of herself, without choice, to sustain the pregnancy. How is this different than requiring the father to donate an organ to sustain the life? Not flaming here. I can't figure out how you can simply say no to the father when you feel the woman should have no choice.
As to the 'trade' this also makes no sense. If you believe, as a Christian, that abortion is wrong I can get that. I might not agree with your absoluteness (I think prevention is a better way to decrease it happening- like access to free birth control and real education which actually decreases sexual activity) but I can respect it. I do not get the willingness to say it is OK to have no gun control because you want abortion to stop. I cannot see Jesus thinking it was OK to trade one set of lives for another. Reading it again, the Jesus I imagine would be horrified with what you wrote. If you are a Believer then why would you not have belief that advocating for both things would be the correct course?
This is something that really confounds me when people say their religion motivates them to advocate for certain policies. How do you cherry pick saying you can't sanction murder but then write you are OK if people get shot? Why is it OK to tell a woman what to do with her body but it is not OK or not on the radar screen to make it so folk can't kill people who are already born?
Last edited:
- Status