- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 105,875
- Reaction score
- 26,660
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
So? Who are you to me?I think it creepy you are so invested in what birth control girls
Do you have anything to say about the subject or are you just going to attack me for daring to speak about it?do/do not take and why.
More invested than anyone else that has replied to the thread.
You do understand every child as a father right?Yep, these dumb rules.
What do/does creepy men have to do with any of this.
Point? Any?You do understand every child as a father right?
Men are not creepy they are the parents.Point? Any?
Men are not creepy they are the parents.
Right-wing nazi fascists view women as property rather than people.The ****?? Teens should not be bringing babies into the world. Abortion is the most responsible thing that a pregnant teen can do, and righties have taken that basic right from her in many states.
That is what I said basically.Men are not creepy they are the parents.
Wow! Just ****in wow.Teens should not be bringing babies into the world.
Wow! Just ****in wow. The hell with choice, the hell with normal human biology. Wow, just ****in wow.
So it was this creepy comment?That is what I said basically.
Poor would be your comprehnsion of them.Is poor as they may be
For someone who wants to touch on biology, you don't know the umbilical physically connects a fetus to its hosts and transports said hosts bodily resources?Prove it
And you're wrong!
Strawman argument. Not mine. It doesn't change the facts!Your argument is that the law is absolutely true no it's not. It's wrong all the time when you think the supreme Court does
Your denial of legal fact is your problem, not mine.It's not lack of understanding it's refusal to accept bullshit. Are you understand your bullshit it's very primitive and simple minded
Strawman again. I cited legal fact and you have nothing to refute that. All you're doing at this point is flailing away with "nuh-uh" style replies.It's solid to think that the law is absolute truth? You couldn't believe that horse shit if you want. I'm not that stupid.
Comprehension of them are complicated you think they are or is personal attack all you have leftPoor would be your comprehnsion of them.
What do you think I don't know that?For someone who wants to touch on biology, you don't know the umbilical physically connects a fetus to its hosts and transports said hosts bodily resources?
No I'm right.And you're wrong!
I'm not changing any facts. I don't think the law is a good metric for which are you this because it's veriedStrawman argument. Not mine. It doesn't change the facts!
I'm not denial of any laws I just don't think they reflect truth. Have you noticed that your argument has turned from arguing for your position to attacking me?Your denial of legal fact is your problem, not mine.
Who cares? Legal fact it doesn't carry outside of the law and I was never talking about law until you brought it up because you were failing on biology.Strawman again. I cited legal fact
If it's too complicated for you, then I cannot help you with that.Comprehension of them are complicated you think they are or is personal attack all you have left
Given your statements, apparently not.What do you think I don't know that?
Only in your mind.No I'm right.
Personhood is a legal matter. The law is what applies. What is your alternative then and why should it be used?I'm not changing any facts. I don't think the law is a good metric for which are you this because it's veried
Who said anything about "truth?" I provided established legal fact. I'm not attacking you, I am telling you. If you're feelng attacked, then that only reflects the weakness of your argumets or position.I'm not denial of any laws I just don't think they reflect truth. Have you noticed that your argument has turned from arguing for your position to attacking me?
The law is what this particular issue is based around.Who cares? Legal fact it doesn't carry outside of the law and I was never talking about law until you brought it up because you were failing on biology.
You're attacking my character because you failed to make you coherent argument.If it's too complicated for you, then I cannot help you with that.
The law is varied and inconsistent.Given your statements, apparently not.
Only in your mind.
Personhood is a legal matter. The law is what applies. What is your alternative then and why should it be used?
Who said anything about "truth?" I provided established legal fact. I'm not attacking you, I am telling you. If you're feelng attacked, then that only reflects the weakness of your argumets or position.
The law is what this particular issue is based around.
Still wrong.You're attacking my character because you failed to make you coherent argument.
The Constitution and federal law is not! And you still haven't offered anything to refute the law nor alternative to it.The law is varied and inconsistent.
Very strange hill for you to die on.
Opinion notedStill wrong.
It is. Read the 9th and 10th amendments.The Constitution and federal law is not! And you still haven't offered anything to refute the law nor alternative to it.
It's fact until you provide something valid to demonstrate otherwise.Opinion noted
What about them? They do not establish personhood for the unborn.It is. Read the 9th and 10th amendments.
That's not how facts work. You have to prove it true I simply doubt it.It's fact until you provide something valid to demonstrate otherwise.
So?What about them? They do not establish personhood for the unborn.
You're the one acting wounded here and making a spectacle of yourself in the process. You're also the one accusing me of making personal attcks, so the burden of proof is on you!That's not how facts work. You have to prove it true I simply doubt it.
Wow, you still don't get it I see.
You're the one projecting this act onto me.You're the one acting wounded here and making a spectacle of yourself in the process.
Well when you failed to defend your position you make a comment about me not being able to comprehend your failed defense it's not that I don't comprehend it it's that you failed.You're also the one accusing me of making personal attcks,
To prove what exactly?so the burden of proof is on you!
Yeah I don't know how what the law says equals absolute truth do you worship the law? I think the law can be wrong.Wow, you still don't get it I see.
Not even a little.You're the one projecting this act onto me.
I did show it as fact.Just declared something to be a fact without showing that it was and demanded me price it wrong. That's what religious people do
No, you simply didn't comprehend. You askes the same questions even though I already explained, mutiple times. That clearly indicates a lack of compehension on your part.Well when you failed to defend your position you make a comment about me not being able to comprehend your failed defense it's not that I don't comprehend it it's that you failed.
That I attacked you as you claimed!To prove what exactly?
"Truth" is just another strawman on your part. It's clear you either do not understand the law or cannot explain it. Much less make a case based around it. Neither have you yet offered any alternative. Just your own feelings. Let me know when you have something rational to offer. The incessant whining on your part is neither an argument or discussion.Yeah I don't know how what the law says equals absolute truth do you worship the law? I think the law can be wrong.
I would know my thoughts and feelings better than youNot even a little.
Showed what to be factI did show it as fact.
This isn't an argument. It's an excuseNo, you simply didn't comprehend.
When you tell me that I'm having feelings or that I can't comprehend that's a statement about my person. Means I'm right and you're becoming emotional.That I attacked you as you claimed!
I didn't misrepresent anything you said."Truth" is just another strawman on your part.
The ball isn't absolute fact to me sometimes it's wrong.It's clear you either do not understand the law or cannot explain it.
I wasn't making a legalistic argument.Much less make a case based around it.
Opinion but yeah.Neither have you yet offered any alternative. Just your own feelings.
Show that my opinion is irrational.Let me know when you have something rational to offer.
I'm not whining pointing out your fellas I'm pointing out that you're not arguing. Is that you're not addressing anything you're freaking out because the law says what it says and somehow you think that should vindicate your idiotic position but you can't explain why.The incessant whining on your part is neither an argument or discussion.
Feelings seems to be all you have to go on.I would know my thoughts and feelings better than you
Go review my posts. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.Showed what to be fact
You're the one trying to make excuses here.This isn't an argument. It's an excuse
Quite the opposite.When you tell me that I'm having feelings or that I can't comprehend that's a statement about my person. Means I'm right and you're becoming emotional.
I didn't mention anything about truth. That was you.I didn't misrepresent anything you said.
You have provided no rational explanation as to why it's wrong.The ball isn't absolute fact to me sometimes it's wrong.
You haven't been making any argument.I wasn't making a legalistic argument.
You're only affirming what I said.Opinion but yeah.
I said, "Neither have you yet offered any alternative. Just your own feelings."Show that my opinion is irrational.
Referencing the law in a legal issue is supporting an argument. And you still failed to comprehend it. Otherwise you would know I already explained it too.I'm not whining pointing out your fellas I'm pointing out that you're not arguing. Is that you're not addressing anything you're freaking out because the law says what it says and somehow you think that should vindicate your idiotic position but you can't explain why.
Are you suggesting mandatory teen pregnancy? Sounds like it.In her National Review article “When IVF Met MAHA,” (July 2025), Leah Libresco Sargeant questions President Trump’s rallying cry for free IVF (In Vitro Fertilization).
She argues, “The harder it is to marry and have children early in life, the more likely it is that couples will struggle to conceive later. A humane culture is ordered to the physical realities of women’s bodies. It does not view the shifting of births to later in life as neutral.”
If humans took measures to prevent whales or giraffes from getting pregnant when their bodies were ready, that would be considered madness and an offense against the natural world. But we think it’s ok to ignore Mother Nature and refuse to support human mothers who follow the rule of nature, which is to have children while still a teenager.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?