subgenius wrote:yes, the Republicans and their long tradition of regulation, er, of legislating behavior...like making people buy health insurance, or deciding how they can own guns, or telling them where/when they can have money, or who they have to bake cakes for.....yep, a fool's errand indeed.
Again, as dumb as advertised. A baker doesn't have to be a bigoted baker, a gun owner doesn't have to be a gun owner if he/she cared about actual safety, having health insurance isn't a "behavior" so much as it is exercising common sense and mandating it was a Republican idea to begin with. However, insisting more than 300 million people immediately adopt an extreme religious idea that sexual intercourse before marriage should not be engaged is about as dumb as it gets. This may be a no-brainer for people who look like you are are not typically going to get a lot of opportunities to have sex, but that doesn't mean you get to dictate to the rest of us what we do with our bodies.
why you type so much? when you could have just typed - legislating behavior is only a fool's errand when Republicans do it.
(as a footnote...All "legislation" is almost always in regards with what anyone does with their body).
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
subgenius wrote:Aww, you just had to come out from under your rock of censorship to speak freely...how gracious. If you send me a pm i will give you my secret of how you read a post you find disagreeable, or even find absurd, but still maintain adult status as a tolerant human being. Or you could accept your inability to simply not "read" uncomfortable posts and get back under that heavy piece of granite that protects your eyes from that tiresome glare of free speech.
I get the strong sense that subs is used to being ignored by women. Probably married multiple times. The way he talks to and about other women online gives the impression he must be married to a marine that orders him around and posting online is his only chance to vent about a sad life of having his pants taken away from him.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
One way of pointing this up is to ask people who have an absolute conviction that 'human life' begins at conception, and confers an immediate and non-negotiable right to have that life continued is to ask them whether they think that women who use intra-uterine devices such as the coil or the loop should be prosecuted for (at least) attempted murder.
For the precise purpose of such devices is to prevent a fertilised ovum (which in their view constitutes a fully rights-endowed human life) implanting in the womb, and hence ensuring that it dies. If you push the definition of the start of life up to implantation, then these devices also scrape off some implanted ova, and hence cause their death.
But we do not hear complaints about this, or demands that funerals shall be held over the resulting soiled sanitary products. Why not?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Jersey Girl wrote: Oh, I had you on ignore and only saw your reply in someone else's post. Here's my response to the above.
“F” yourself freely.
Aww, you just had to come out from under your rock of censorship to speak freely...how gracious. If you send me a pm i will give you my secret of how you read a post you find disagreeable, or even find absurd, but still maintain adult status as a tolerant human being. Or you could accept your inability to simply not "read" uncomfortable posts and get back under that heavy piece of granite that protects your eyes from that tiresome glare of free speech.
Translation, for those that don’t speak subsese:
“I’m offended that you used your free speech right to tell me to go “F” myself!!”
EAllusion wrote:Almost certainly, yes. Since Roe vs. Wade, there's been about a million abortions per year on average. It is extremely dubious that this was the rate prior and just not captured by adequate research.
A million? There were 652,639 abortions reported to the CDC in 2014. With induced abortion ratio per 1,000 live births being at 186. The year before Roe vs. Wade (1972) those numbers were 586,760 and 180 respectively. Basically the same if we consider the numbers of abortions that went unreported. You know, the successful illegal abortions that no one wanted to report because they were, you know, illegal.
canpakes wrote:Translation, for those that don’t speak subsese:
“I’m offended that you used your free speech right to tell me to go “F” myself!!”
yes, i am known for my thin skinned nature on this board, thank you - but - you must be using an older dialect because it is correctly trasnslated as: “I’m amused that you manifest my passive-aggressive accusation by posting "Oh, I had you on ignore [but]..." ”
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
canpakes wrote:Translation, for those that don’t speak subsese:
“I’m offended that you used your free speech right to tell me to go “F” myself!!”
yes, i am known for my thin skinned nature on this board, thank you - but - you must be using an older dialect because it is correctly trasnslated as: “I’m amused that you manifest my passive-aggressive accusation by posting "Oh, I had you on ignore [but]..." ”
As likely, Jersey Girl is probably as amused that you chafe at her ability to maintain a choice in this matter of abortion, and characterize that choice as oppressive to your own choice for her and others.
But she can speak for herself on that one, anyway. I wouldn’t want to deny her that.
Hawkeye wrote: A million? There were 652,639 abortions reported to the CDC in 2014.
Correct. I gave you a rough on average per year since 1973. Abortions are down off their peak. Again, birth control rates are up, fertility rates are down, and teen pregnancy is way down.
586,760 and 180 respectively. Basically the same if we consider the numbers of abortions that went unreported. You know, the successful illegal abortions that no one wanted to report because they were, you know, illegal.
Abortion law in the US was actually a hodgepodge prior to Roe. Even in states where it was a felony, enforcement was relatively lax and inconsistent. The numbers you are citing, however, show that the abortion rate more than doubled after Roe vs. Wade came down and lasted for years. If you count every abortion as a murder, that's horrifying jump in the murder rate.
canpakes wrote:As likely, Jersey Girl is probably as amused that you chafe at her ability to maintain a choice in this matter of abortion, and characterize that choice as oppressive to your own choice for her and others.
You must have a mistype, because because, in this context, claiming oneself as being pro-choice and pro-life is an inability.
canpakes wrote:But she can speak for herself on that one, anyway. I wouldn’t want to deny her that.
*He said after speaking for her.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
canpakes wrote:As likely, Jersey Girl is probably as amused that you chafe at her ability to maintain a choice in this matter of abortion, and characterize that choice as oppressive to your own choice for her and others.
You must have a mistype, because because, in this context, claiming oneself as being pro-choice and pro-life is an inability.
canpakes wrote:But she can speak for herself on that one, anyway. I wouldn’t want to deny her that.
*He said after speaking for her.
Silly subs. You’re having trouble with the English language, again.
1. Some folks can hold two seemingly opposing ideals within their mind at the same time, and navigate between them more successfully than others.
2. One can be ‘pro-life’ for the purposes of their own self while maintaining the belief that others should choose for themselves - notwithstanding that they might not accept the definitional conditions that you want to prescribe for them.
3. Conjecture about how another might respond is not the same as speaking for them.
In any event, at least Jersey Girl has the huevos to type out her position, regardless of how flawed you found it, as opposed to yourself simply remaining vague about your own while accusing her of oppressing you by keeping you from being able to impose your own choice upon her.