No, but good to know that you are okay with the mass murder of innocent babies if it furthers you political ends.
The state of New York...
- Thread starter BIGOSUFAN
- Start date
Only if those innocent babies would grow to be liberals. Not sure why you have an issue with this.
Top 10 dumbest comments ever made on this board. And I know the asinine evpoint you’re trying to make.
Al Gore has a big house so global warming can't be real.
Not a single one of you virtue signallers is willing to move to NY so abortion can't be murder.
We all know metaphysical truth is determined solely by whether the actions of the people positing that truth are completely aligned with that truth.
So far we know life doesn't begin at full term, maybe a state will start allowing post term abortions so we can test the hypothesis that life begins at birth.
Tell us how you feel when you see an ultra sound of your baby in your wife's womb with a face and beating heart.
Changed my view of abortion immediately.
So you agree that human life begins when a sperm and egg combine to become a single celled zygote?
I'm not trying to pimp you. I just hate it when pro-abortion folks sound like idiots on the subject of when life begins. Unlike the causes of climate change, no models or predictions are needed to answer the question.
Dear pilt;
It is a very well known Alinskite tactic to use ridicule and derision when confronting someone with an opinion with which you disagree. In a way it’s a rather cowardly way to interact. On this board I am often accused of being passive aggressive, but I have to say this Akinsky tactic is about as passive aggressive as one can get, It is an oblique method of insult. Maybe I have missed it from you before, but this appears to me to be a new way for you to communicate. Which is disheartening. You are usually a person with whom it is pleasurable to debate. This is not a good look on you. I want the old pilt back!
Thank you Dan. Can you explain this more? Which rule for radicals am I employing?
Just trying to offer up some friendly advice. Just the other day some of the people were saying you are one on the “good” leftists on this board, smart, respectful, making valid points. Your actions tonight belie that consensus. You are becoming just another troll. That’s regrettable.
I said I KNEW what asinine point you are trying to make. But I guess you felt inclined to prove your idiot credentials.
He does this at times. Don't attempt to reason with him, he's a shapeshifter.
I guess it is a valid point if all you can come up with is asinine and idiot
What a moronic response. Are you actually saying that unless pro life people don't go to New York and murder abortionists we're hypocrites?
Don't you get it? We're PRO life! All life you dipshit.
Another moronic response. My family has been ranching the same land for over a 100 years. I'm an Oklahoman I will fight like hell to keep NY values from here but it's up to New Yorkers to stop the insanity in their state.
I’m kinda upset by your post.
I thought I was the guy that thinks he’s the smartest man in the room always.
Good point. That's exactly how some of the lefties on this board view science. My bad. But the rest of us don't view alarmism as actual science. You and I have agreed on the purpose of alarmism in the past. And it isn't science.
Yes, the climate changes, just as it has since the earth developed an atmosphere. 4 billion years ago, plus or minus a few hundred million years, roughly? "Climate change denier" and "climate change skeptic" are nothing more than lazy intellectually dishonest labels applied by people who are more interested in political messaging than they are in the actual science. "The science is settled." No, it isn't, or the models and predictions would actually be accurate within an acceptable degree of accuracy. "97% of blah blah blah agrees.*" Yeah, check out that asterisk. It tells you exactly what that 97% consists of.
I get that some folks choose to accept narratives as facts. I get the purpose of alarmism is to get buy in to policies that a particular side supports. A perfect example right now is Trump's border rhetoric. That's been happening since this country was founded. However, claiming a political opponent doesn't believe in science because they don't buy in to alarmism as a basis for policy is just stupid and intellectually lazy.
We both know that if the alarmism was based on confirmed fact and not political motivation, people would be breaking their asses to reverse the needle movement, including the fat cats who have the biggest carbon footprints. We both know that the champions of climate alarmism are in it for the payout and the political victories. And there's zero doubt that we both know the science is far from settled or the people making predictions could get it right within an acceptable margin of error for once.
I could believe that you think that science on 24/7 is that the metaphysical truth is determined solely by whether the actions of the people positing that truth are completely aligned with that truth if I thought you were as brainless as Toon, but you aren't. Not even close. I always laugh at the Turd Ferguson routine, though.
The question on abortion isn't when life begins because we know exactly when that occurs. The question on abortion is whether or not murder is the appropriate term to use/consider when terminating a human life during pregancy. To that, fetuses of a survivable gestational age aren't aborted to save the life of a mother. They're delivered. No physician with any sense of morality is going to kill a viable fetus in the name of maternal health. The reality is that endangered mothers at 24 weeks or so and beyond will have a Cesarean section delivery and medical science will attempt to overcome the pathophysiology of premature birth.
All that said, will New York's law increase the number of late term abortions? I really don't know. That's going to depend on whether medical professionals will adhere to what's typically the standard of care or not. My only issue with the law is the gray area it introduces regarding what qualifies for protection under the law. Terminating a pregnancy with a viable fetus isn't something I think is ethical.
Peace out.
Absolutely correct that science can't tell us what is ethical in the case of abortion. We can infer what people believe to be ethical though, which is sitting on their ass mewling about the monstrosity of late term abortions that they have the power to affect.
Ask one of the virtue signallers
You aren't without options here.
NY is clearly bass ackwards.
http://dlvr.it/QxNMBh
Kill those innocent babies. Don't touch convicted murderers.
http://dlvr.it/QxNMBh
Kill those innocent babies. Don't touch convicted murderers.
Non American kids not being able to freely move into the US = Bear rage
His own child being taken apart = "Totes"
On further reflection I agree with Brad that there is a lot of gray area when it comes to the dismembering of children.
Similar threads
