Impressed by Trump administration

• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848326 wrote:You have clearly stated that you believe abortion should be illegal.
  
  I guess with Trump elected, we need to start asking Republicans what they mean when they say words.

  I do wish it wasn't legal but there's more to it that that....much more. We shouldn't reverse the Roe v Wade decision.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848328 wrote:As a last resort. It's not a first option for anyone or very few.
  
  Glad we have come full circle and you agree women are equals and deserve to be respected for more than a cluster of cells residing in their body.

  First or last option had nothing to do with pointing out that the function of abortion is ultimately birth control. Be it first or last option, abortion is birth control.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848329 wrote:I do wish it wasn't legal but there's more to it that that....much more. We shouldn't reverse the Roe v Wade decision.

  Then why do you support judges and politicians who want to make it illegal?
  
  Like if you want it to be illegal you can't also claim that we shouldn't overturn RvW. You make no sense and are using double speak like 1984.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848330 wrote:First or last option had nothing to do with pointing out that the function of abortion is ultimately birth control. Be it first or last option, abortion is birth control.

  Okay. I don't why you hammer these semantics. But okay.
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1848325 wrote:Big government is okay as long as its in restrooms and bedrooms.
  
  Signed,
  
  Republicans in 2017

  
  
  It was obama and liberal BIG government that forced their warped agenda onto The People.
  
  All was fine without THEIR BIG GOVT intervention.
  
  
  Get in the game.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1848333 wrote:It was obama and liberal BIG government that forced their warped agenda onto The People.
  
  All was fine without THEIR BIG GOVT intervention.
  
  
  Get in the game.

  So you are for Big Government when it benefits your ideas but if it benefits women or minorities you are against it.
  
  Classic Republican!
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848331 wrote:Then why do you support judges and politicians who want to make it illegal?
  
  Like if you want it to be illegal you can't also claim that we shouldn't overturn RvW. You make no sense and are using double speak like 1984.

  I support judges who are pro life. I don't believe that's the same thing as making abortion illegal. They are two different things.
  
  I've already addressed why. Would I rather it not be legal??? Yes, because that would be a reflection of the society at large. We shouldn't be consumed with going back and trying to change a legal interpretation because abortions will occur whether they are legal or not if people truly want them. It's more important to have a society that doesn't desire abortions.
  
  I'm glad you continue to ask.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848332 wrote:Okay. I don't why you hammer these semantics. But okay.

  I didn't view the function of abortion as a semantic.
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1848334 wrote:So you are for Big Government when it benefits your ideas but if it benefits women or minorities you are against it.
  
  Classic Republican!

  
  No; I detest BIG government.
  
  
  Most Americans do not favor infanticide.
  
  
  If you are a male, go the men's bathroom. If you are a female, go to the women's bathroom.
  We do not need government to be involved in such a simple matter.
  
  
  When we don't do common sense; we do more government. Bad.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1848331 wrote:Like if you want it to be illegal you can't also claim that we shouldn't overturn RvW.

  Why not? Wishing someone hadn't squeezed toothpaste out of a tube isn't the same as wanting to try to put it back in the tube.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1848337 wrote:No; I detest BIG government.
  
  
  Most Americans do not favor infanticide.
  
  
  If you are a male, go the men's bathroom. If you are a female, go to the women's bathroom.
  We do not need government to be involved in such a simple matter.
  
  
  When we don't do common sense; we do more government. Bad.

  If you detest big government, then why do you support laws that would insert BIG GOVERNMENT into the decisions made between a woman and her doctor?
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1848338 wrote:Why not? Wishing someone hadn't squeezed toothpaste out of a tube isn't the same as wanting to try to put it back in the tube.

  It was out of the tube since the beginning of time. Women have been having abortions even back when Jesus was walking around pretending to be a prophet and selling his snake oil. The only difference is now we have safe abortions and that is 100% why the issue is about women's right and women's reproductive health.
  
  Republicans continue to prove they don't care about women's health.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848335 wrote:I support judges who are pro life. I don't believe that's the same thing as making abortion illegal. They are two different things.
  
  I've already addressed why. Would I rather it not be legal??? Yes, because that would be a reflection of the society at large. We shouldn't be consumed with going back and trying to change a legal interpretation because abortions will occur whether they are legal or not if people truly want them. It's more important to have a society that doesn't desire abortions.
  
  I'm glad you continue to ask.

  One thing Republicans could do to reduce abortions is continue to fund organizations like PP that provide contraceptives to low income women that prevents pregnancy and therefore prevents abortions. They could also ramp up welfare programs, education, and support wage growth so that mothers can have a stronger financial base to make the decision to keep the child.
  
  But no, Republicans would rather waste billions of dollars and many man hours of political capital defunding a woman's health organization and supporting budgets that cut programs to low income women and children. Pro-life is actually anti-sex, anti-poor, and anti-women.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848342 wrote:One thing Republicans could do to reduce abortions is continue to fund organizations like PP that provide contraceptives to low income women that prevents pregnancy and therefore prevents abortions. They could also ramp up welfare programs, education, and support wage growth so that mothers can have a stronger financial base to make the decision to keep the child.
  
  But no, Republicans would rather waste billions of dollars and many man hours of political capital defunding a woman's health organization and supporting budgets that cut programs to low income women and children. Pro-life is actually anti-sex, anti-poor, and anti-women.

  Maybe you should tell Republicans that then.
  
  I disagree with your pro-life definition.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848343 wrote:Maybe you should tell Republicans that then.
  
  I disagree with your pro-life definition.

  That's fine. It looks bad therefore I wouldn't want to be associated with that reality either.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848345 wrote:That's fine. It looks bad therefore I wouldn't want to be associated with that reality either.

  I don't make my decisions based on how "it looks" but I appreciate your opinion on what you wouldn't want to do.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848346 wrote:I don't make my decisions based on how "it looks" but I appreciate your opinion on what you wouldn't want to do.

  Well reality would disagree with you much like reality disagrees with your world view. It's really unfortunate you are so ignorant and delusional.
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1848340 wrote:If you detest big government, then why do you support laws that would insert BIG GOVERNMENT into the decisions made between a woman and her doctor?

  
  The People decided long ago that murder is against the law. If a majority of 9 justices disagreed with that once; it does not mean it cannot continue to be debated etc..etc.... BIG government should not necessarily be allowed to stand in the way of protecting innocent unborn children from being snuffed out.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1848349 wrote:The People decided long ago that murder is against the law. If a majority of 9 justices disagreed with that once; it does not mean it cannot continue to be debated etc..etc.... BIG government should not necessarily be allowed to stand in the way of protecting innocent unborn children from being snuffed out.

  The word you are looking for is "Fetus". Fetus is not a person. Reality.
  
  Tell me more about your BIG GOVERNMENT intervention into the private lives of free Americans. You love BIG GOVERNMENT; just admit it. It is the reality.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848347 wrote:Well reality would disagree with you much like reality disagrees with your world view. It's really unfortunate you are so ignorant and delusional.

  If worrying about how "it looks" to others is the basis for your decisions then they really aren't your decisions.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1848351 wrote:If worrying about how "it looks" to others is the basis for your decisions then they really aren't your decisions.

  We know. Republicans elected Trump as President who has shown it doesn't matter how things look as long as Fox News spins it the correct way.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1848341 wrote:It was out of the tube since the beginning of time. Women have been having abortions even back when Jesus was walking around pretending to be a prophet and selling his snake oil. The only difference is now we have safe abortions and that is 100% why the issue is about women's right and women's reproductive health.
  
  Republicans continue to prove they don't care about women's health.

  Okay, it appears you missed the analogy. No worries.
  
  The toothpaste coming out of the tube is, in my analogy, representative of abortion being made legal in the first place.
  
  It's not an unreasonable position, whether we're speaking on this topic or some other topic, to wish something had happened differently without thinking it should be changed now, particularly if things that have taken place between then and now would prevent the perceived benefit from coming about.
  
  In simpler terms, making it illegal now might be seen as not having the same effect has keeping it illegal then, because the era we live in now has been the result of it being legal for several decades, and as such, the variables aren't all the same.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1848353 wrote:We know. Republicans elected Trump as President who has shown it doesn't matter how things look as long as Fox News spins it the correct way.

  I can't honestly speak to that being the case or not. I don't find it particularly of great importance whether it is or is not.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1848354 wrote:...
  In simpler terms, making it illegal now might be seen as not having the same effect has keeping it illegal then, because the era we live in now has been the result of it being legal for several decades, and as such, the variables aren't all the same.

  Indeed.
• Heretic

  

  QuakerOats;1848349 wrote:The People decided long ago that murder is against the law. If a majority of 9 justices disagreed with that once; it does not mean it cannot continue to be debated etc..etc.... BIG government should not necessarily be allowed to stand in the way of protecting innocent unborn children from being snuffed out.

  To sum up the bolded:
  
  innocent = ALL TEH FEELZ
  
  unborn children = fallacy. If you are unborn, you aren't a child or any sort of independent living being.