What's new
By:
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.

2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Selective indignation. Knuckledraggers incredibly offensive. Libtards, perfectly acceptable reference.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Old Pio said:
Man, that's deep. We're all waiting for the next ejaculation of wisdom.
Click to expand...

brookyone said:
Big Dick...Little Dick over and over...ejaculation. Are the keys on your keypad all sticky?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

Tiggsy said:
This is exactly why I usually stay away from political threads. Occasionally I'll show up, like now, but don't tend to stay long. It always quickly devolves into attacks or at least cheap shots as we can easily see here. Just isn't worth it because I don't care enough about the issue to bother. Good luck out there.
Click to expand...

You were saying? :)
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

brookyone said:
Big Dick...Little Dick over and over...ejaculation. Are the keys on your keypad all sticky?
Click to expand...

For the slow students in the back pleasuring themselves: Big Dick refers to Nixon. Little Dick refers to, oh you figure it out. It's also designed to make you pregnant with celestial fire. Seems to be working.

As I pointed out yesterday, it's a good thing pro-abortionists never say anything loopy.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-w...-pro-lifers-goal-reproducing-wh#ixzz2WWaVC9RE
 
Last edited:
Shirtless Guy said:
I don't go nutty when someone disagrees with me, I go nutty when you're constantly an *** about disagreeing with me. You are rarely respectful and always accusing conservatives of being knuckledraggers, etc. I have no problems having an honest debate but how often does that actually happen here?

So if the woman was on the way to the abortion clinic when she gets in a car accident and dies can the other driver be charged with two counts? I don't know how you can focus solely on the woman in this situation. Does the fetus not have rights? At what point is it viable? Babies are surviving birth at earlier and earlier times. How come what the Philadelphia abortion doctor did is so evil and we can all agree with that but if you change the situation slightly its suddenly completely tolerated by the left? What if the man wants to have the child? I know he doesn't have to go through the birthing process but why does he have no say? I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything, in the final analysis for me, there are at least 3 people that are directly effected by the decision and legally only one of them has any say. Why is a woman given the choice to kill her child before its born but not after? No one has appointed me as an overlord so why should what I think matter after the child is born either?

Overall, we will likely always have abortion be legal, so the reality is that the latter part of what you said is very important. To this point in my life I have not invested time or energy into volunteering or outreach. I'm still getting my **** together and just got married so I'm rather busy trying to deal with new dynamics in my life. I have invested time in the political process in Minnesota and with how frustrating that was, I probably should just invest that time into volunteering for causes I believe in.
Click to expand...

A bit more to cover, but here goes:

1) I tend to have trouble differentiating between righty posters. I know the true knuckledraggers (Opie for example) and the more traditional righties (Lynah for instance). However, for your sake I will take the time to parse it out better than I have been as I'm sure I could do a better job.

2) You're throwing out a lot of hypotheticals but I will answer what I think is the key question. I never said the woman has sole rights. I said she has the final say and shouldn't get overruled subject to the question of reasonable viability. So, I'm sympathetic to the question of notification (although if there's abuse involved it gets sticky) of fathers. The fetus however does not have its own rights as its not yet a person. If you start granting personhood to unviable fetusus think of what you're opening up. Miscarriages could in some municipalities be subject to a criminal investigation. I can easily see that happening in some places. Contraception could also be considered illegal in that you'd be preventing life from happening. I'm sorry but this is where I step off.

Regarding what I mean by "reasonable viability" I don't know the stats but the odds of a baby surviving after 20-25 weeks has to be very, very, small and the odds of them being healthy even smaller. After the 2nd trimester I'm completely on board of only for the life or health of the mother. Before that I say I just don't see it.

3) I would suggest looking into what I alluded to about making an impact outside of politics. It might not change your mind on the subject but you could feel differently about the choices some of these women are confronted with. I'm sure its rarely as black and white as wingnut radio might be telling you.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Rover said:
A bit more to cover, but here goes:

1) I tend to have trouble differentiating between righty posters. I know the true knuckledraggers (Opie for example) and the more traditional righties (Lynah for instance). However, for your sake I will take the time to parse it out better than I have been as I'm sure I could do a better job.

2) You're throwing out a lot of hypotheticals but I will answer what I think is the key question. I never said the woman has sole rights. I said she has the final say and shouldn't get overruled subject to the question of reasonable viability. So, I'm sympathetic to the question of notification (although if there's abuse involved it gets sticky) of fathers. The fetus however does not have its own rights as its not yet a person. If you start granting personhood to unviable fetusus think of what you're opening up. Miscarriages could in some municipalities be subject to a criminal investigation. I can easily see that happening in some places. Contraception could also be considered illegal in that you'd be preventing life from happening. I'm sorry but this is where I step off.

Regarding what I mean by "reasonable viability" I don't know the stats but the odds of a baby surviving after 20-25 weeks has to be very, very, small and the odds of them being healthy even smaller. After the 2nd trimester I'm completely on board of only for the life or health of the mother. Before that I say I just don't see it.

3) I would suggest looking into what I alluded to about making an impact outside of politics. It might not change your mind on the subject but you could feel differently about the choices some of these women are confronted with. I'm sure its rarely as black and white as wingnut radio might be telling you.
Click to expand...

I'm not a social conservative. Evidently the absence of heated posts against gay marriage, gays in the military and abortion, etc has slid under your radar. I don't watch Fox or listen to Limbaugh. I don't need marching orders from anyone to form my opinions. I agree: you "have trouble differentiating between righty posters." And my opinion is you aren't really interested in improving your batting average. That leaves you more time to posture.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Rover said:
A bit more to cover, but here goes:

1) I tend to have trouble differentiating between righty posters. I know the true knuckledraggers (Opie for example) and the more traditional righties (Lynah for instance). However, for your sake I will take the time to parse it out better than I have been as I'm sure I could do a better job.
Click to expand...

If it's any consolation, I can't differentiate between huff-and-puffers and traditional left-wing posters. I will not call you lefties because it is an insult to my dexterity.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Rover said:
If you start granting personhood to unviable fetusus think of what you're opening up. Miscarriages could in some municipalities be subject to a criminal investigation. I can easily see that happening in some places. Contraception could also be considered illegal in that you'd be preventing life from happening. I'm sorry but this is where I step off.
Click to expand...

I can't help thinking that all this hand wringing about condoms becoming illegal sounds just like those who fret about how, if you make gay marriage legal, the chicks will be marrying their dogs next. "think of what you're opening up..." etc. :rolleyes:
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

geezer said:
I can't help thinking that all this hand wringing about condoms becoming illegal sounds just like those who fret about how, if you make gay marriage legal, the chicks will be marrying their dogs next. "think of what you're opening up..." etc. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Who is saying that condoms should be illegal? This isn't a musical number from a Monty Python movie.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Shirtless Guy said:
The whole debate of a woman's right to choose is that she makes the choice of whether or not the fetus is "alive" and therefore if she makes the choice that the fetus is not alive, how can anyone else make the decision that it is alive after that choice has been made?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just don't follow your argument here. I posed the hypothetical of someone who is literally dying being killed, and you counter that a reversible decision that hasn't been carried out yet is somehow more irrevocable?

I'm not trying to make any kind of a moral statement, I'm just pointing out that there is already a legal framework in place for what happens when you kill someone who is already "virtually" dead. That they were going to die anyway does not absolve you of legal responsibility for killing them "early". Regardless of whether that's right or wrong, it's consistent.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

geezer said:
I can't help thinking that all this hand wringing about condoms becoming illegal sounds just like those who fret about how, if you make gay marriage legal, the chicks will be marrying their dogs next. "think of what you're opening up..." etc. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Contraception has been illegal in the past. That was done away with in the 1965 SCOTUS case Griswold v Connecticut. One of the reasons for the verdict which overturned the law was a "right of privacy." Justice Black pointed out in his dissent that nowhere in the Constitution is there such a right. Among the reasons cited by the majority was that the right existed through the 9th and 14th Amendments although it was never explicitly spelled out. This right to privacy was cited 8 years later in the Roe v Wade case that legalized abortion. There are plenty of people out there who do not believe in a "right to privacy" which would mean that both Roe and Griswold could be overturned if anyone ever successfully argued Justice Black's point - and with this Court would you really be surprised to see it happen?

And let's ask the Catholic Church about the issue of contraception...
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Craig P. said:
Sorry, I just don't follow your argument here. I posed the hypothetical of someone who is literally dying being killed, and you counter that a reversible decision that hasn't been carried out yet is somehow more irrevocable?

I'm not trying to make any kind of a moral statement, I'm just pointing out that there is already a legal framework in place for what happens when you kill someone who is already "virtually" dead. That they were going to die anyway does not absolve you of legal responsibility for killing them "early". Regardless of whether that's right or wrong, it's consistent.
Click to expand...
So if the baby isn't viable yet then there is no person (according to Rover and others) so how can there be two counts?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Craig P. said:
Sorry, I just don't follow your argument here. I posed the hypothetical of someone who is literally dying being killed, and you counter that a reversible decision that hasn't been carried out yet is somehow more irrevocable?

I'm not trying to make any kind of a moral statement, I'm just pointing out that there is already a legal framework in place for what happens when you kill someone who is already "virtually" dead. That they were going to die anyway does not absolve you of legal responsibility for killing them "early". Regardless of whether that's right or wrong, it's consistent.
Click to expand...

We're all dying. :p
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Shirtless Guy said:
So if the baby isn't viable yet then there is no person (according to Rover and others) so how can there be two counts?
Click to expand...

Because a lot of conservatives have written it into law hoping to create exactly this type of conundrum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top