Trump vs. Hillary (NO OTHER OPTIONS)
-
sleeper
The right to make their own health choices is the most important human right. To deny this right to women is reprehensible in a civilized society.However, denying someone a single right isn't the same as suggesting they shouldn't have human rights as a whole. Just for the purpose of accuracy, he doesn't advocate mass extermination or anything. -
sleeper
Ah, so you're one of those people who think miscarriages should be involuntary manslaughter.wkfan;1813876 wrote:Hmmmm...health and safety.....
Certainly not for the unborn child.
Convenience, yes. Health and safety....not often.
Enjoy our first female President for the next 8 years! -
CenterBHSFan
That is a ridiculous misconstruing and you know it XDsleeper;1813878 wrote:Ah, so you're one of those people who think miscarriages should be involuntary manslaughter. -
CenterBHSFan
You've just described everybody from the writers of the Constitution to President Washington all the way through each Presidency to Barack Obama.Heretic;1813866 wrote:If a person wants to believe, no biggie. If a person wants to use their PERSONAL belief as the foundation of their legislation while holding a public office, so countless people can be affected by their ability to pick and choose which verses in their holy book are deserving of becoming law, they deserve failure.
In context:
- Providence
- The Creator
- God
- The Almighty
etc. -
wkfan
Nope....sleeper;1813878 wrote:Ah, so you're one of those people who think miscarriages should be involuntary manslaughter. -
sleeper
Why not? You just said the cluster of cells is an unborn child therefore a miscarriage would be involuntary manslaughter.wkfan;1813883 wrote:Nope....
Just using your own logic against you. Let me know when you want to accept reality and concede. -
sleeper
It's about as ridiculous as believing potential for life is the same as actual life.CenterBHSFan;1813881 wrote:That is a ridiculous misconstruing and you know it XD
The SCOTUS has ruled on this time and time again. Time for the religious whack jobs to accept reality. -
QuakerOats
I see; what about the rights of the innocent unborn; she answers for them too I guess.sleeper;1813873 wrote:The ability to make her own health and life choices.
Nuts. -
wkfan
Yes, that 'cluster of cells' IS an unborn child....but you are realllllllllllllllllllly stretching, as usual, to try to make a point.....and missing by a wide margin.sleeper;1813886 wrote:Why not? You just said the cluster of cells is an unborn child therefore a miscarriage would be involuntary manslaughter.
Just using your own logic against you. Let me know when you want to accept reality and concede.
You are trying to use logic....and failing because your argument is completely illogical.
You lose. -
QuakerOatsZWICK 4 PREZ;1813851 wrote:hes a nutbag
I guess if you are not a progressive/Marxist baby killer you are a nutbag ......... wonderful. -
QuakerOatsZWICK 4 PREZ;1813832 wrote:Watched the highlights of the debate... my only question is... why does Trump and Pence think they can deny what Trump has said.
Why does Clinton and Kaine think they can deny what Clinton has done? -
sleeper
They have no rights just like your sperm doesn't have any rights either.QuakerOats;1813893 wrote:I see; what about the rights of the innocent unborn; she answers for them too I guess.
Nuts.
Reality! Something the GOP seems to be lacking. -
sleeper
I'm not stretching. A cluster of cells does not have any rights. Reality!wkfan;1813894 wrote:Yes, that 'cluster of cells' IS an unborn child....but you are realllllllllllllllllllly stretching, as usual, to try to make a point.....and missing by a wide margin.
You are trying to use logic....and failing because your argument is completely illogical.
You lose. -
Heretic
THE FFFEEEEEELLLLLZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!QuakerOats;1813895 wrote:I guess if you are not a progressive/Marxist baby killer you are a nutbag ......... wonderful. -
bases_loaded
He wasn't denying the ability to get an abortion as much as he was saying the state shouldn't pay for said abortion right?sleeper;1813873 wrote:The ability to make her own health and life choices. -
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Well when you're on the wrong side of the Supreme Court, you're not usually right.superman;1813869 wrote:The nerve of him. What kind of asshole tries to make it harder on women to kill babies. Shame on him. -
sleeper
Especially after HRC nominates 4 liberal justices to sit on the court for 40 years.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1813906 wrote:Well when you're on the wrong side of the Supreme Court, you're not usually right.
But they wanted Trump! -
O-Trap
If we assume that personhood (and, subsequently, rights) begin at conception, then we're dealing with two independent persons. Neither of them is owed the right to the use of the other one's body for any reason. Even if one cannot survive without the use of the other one's body, it still doesn't give the former the right to it.wkfan;1813876 wrote:Hmmmm...health and safety.....
Certainly not for the unborn child.
Convenience, yes. Health and safety....not often.
Easy. I wasn't defending him.sleeper;1813877 wrote:The right to make their own health choices is the most important human right. To deny this right to women is reprehensible in a civilized society.
Deism is not really religion.CenterBHSFan;1813882 wrote:You've just described everybody from the writers of the Constitution to President Washington all the way through each Presidency to Barack Obama.
In context:
- Providence
- The Creator
- God
- The Almighty
etc.
Actually, the proof is on the affirmative claim. So, if you suggest that a zygote is a person, it falls on you to demonstrate that it is using quantifiable facts or logically sound constructs ... or some combination thereof.wkfan;1813894 wrote:Yes, that 'cluster of cells' IS an unborn child....but you are realllllllllllllllllllly stretching, as usual, to try to make a point.....and missing by a wide margin.
You are trying to use logic....and failing because your argument is completely illogical.
You lose.
Who said anything about Marxism?QuakerOats;1813895 wrote:I guess if you are not a progressive/Marxist baby killer you are a nutbag ......... wonderful.
I HAVE to imagine that there are at least some Republicans who recognize how badly they whiffed here. Not that I care for them, but Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and possibly even that assbag John Kasich would have fared better.sleeper;1813910 wrote:But they wanted Trump! -
bases_loadedWhen you say "they" you mean the voters right? Unlike the DNC the GOP isn't into election fixing.
-
O-Trap
Yes.bases_loaded;1813916 wrote:When you say "they" you mean the voters right? Unlike the DNC the GOP isn't into election fixing. -
Belly35
the same can be said about Hillary... But let's not for get e mail communication, FBI investigate reports, doj document.... Oh myZWICK 4 PREZ;1813832 wrote:Watched the highlights of the debate... my only question is... why does Trump and Pence think they can deny what Trump has said. It's 2016. there's audio and video of everything. You look like an idiot when you deny stuff that you're recorded doing. -
sleeper
Sure there are some but they are the minority.I HAVE to imagine that there are at least some Republicans who recognize how badly they whiffed here. Not that I care for them, but Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and possibly even that assbag John Kasich would have fared better.
GOP deserves to lose this election to the most corrupt US politician in history. The only plus side is we won't have to worry about religious whackjobs on the SCOTUS for the next 40 years. I, for one, welcome our first female President. -
bases_loaded
-
supermanSleeper: Abortion is a woman's right and bring able to make health choices is the most basic human right. Votes for the party that wants the government to take over Healthcare. Fucking retard.
-
Con_Alma
If you are assuming personhood at conception there are other legal "duties" in place on the parent including but not limited to basic care. Failing to provide such care can lead to neglect and or abuse in most States.O-Trap;1813911 wrote:If we assume that personhood (and, subsequently, rights) begin at conception, then we're dealing with two independent persons. Neither of them is owed the right to the use of the other one's body for any reason. Even if one cannot survive without the use of the other one's body, it still doesn't give the former the right to it. ...
I don't think assuming personhood at conception is the right approach to take with regard to justifying abortion based on not having rights to one's body....unless there's some other way the parent can provide basic care at that stage.