Abortion is equal to Stand Your Ground[344]

[Lursa]

No, we have free for all abortion because there is a vocal group of narcissistic, irresponsible, and immature lunatics who think their right to *fun* outstrips anyone else's rights..including the right to be alive. If you are alive, and you get in the way of these depraved individuals' *fun* heaven help you, because if they can get away with it, they will kill you.

Your emotional rhetoric erases all credibility and you end up in the category of only 'helping the pro-choice side'. There's one or 2 others that are also members of that group

So if you wish to continue actual discussion, you might consider that 'crazy' works against rational people and opinions, period.

Or, we can start counting you on our side! :2wave:

 

[Summerwind]

No, we have free for all abortion because there is a vocal group of narcissistic, irresponsible, and immature lunatics who think their right to *fun* outstrips anyone else's rights..including the right to be alive. If you are alive, and you get in the way of these depraved individuals' *fun* heaven help you, because if they can get away with it, they will kill you.

Sounds to me that you're just jealous because some women are having fun and you aren't.

Is there some reason women should be disallowed from having sex except for the purpose of reproduction? Have you cleared this with all the boyfriends and husbands in the country. I get the feeling they'd not be happy with your perspective.

 

[prometeus]

No, we have free for all abortion because there is a vocal group of narcissistic, irresponsible, and immature lunatics who think their right to *fun* outstrips anyone else's rights..including the right to be alive. If you are alive, and you get in the way of these depraved individuals' *fun* heaven help you, because if they can get away with it, they will kill you.

What is this sexual repression coming to surface, jealousy or envy for other's sexual joy, frustration dues to lack of sex or all of the above?
Maybe a new partner or a better one could help....

 

[JayDubya]

I LOVE this response. I'm going to get a lot of mileage out of it, over time.

Having kids isnt a choice, it's an accident....that's what you're saying? Oops, it just happens, bummer. You are saying: People will be people and pregnancy happens." Like it's not even their fault? LOLOL Kinda the opposite of the whole....'it's HER fault, she could have, SHOULD have, prevented it' garbage that we usually see.

OTOH, it IS what most pro-choice people claim: yes, people will be people and accidents happen. Sometimes people arent prepared for those circumstances and that's why we have CHOICE.

You're position seems to be....oopsie! Health care for people's accidents SHOULD be paid for. Keep 'em coming off the production line....cuz it's natural? Or why? I really dont understand that part.

Of course, cut them off as soon as they breathe air....no more support then but by all means, enable the pregnancies thru health care (or even the presumption that it is justified.)

I'm sure I'll revisit this...I havent had time to look at all the angles yet

It's interesting how you didn't scrutinize your first inane straw man's failure at all before lunging headfirst into another even worse, even more stupid one.

There is nothing in your post that approximately resembles coherent human expression.

If you think we can magically decide to become pregnant or not, you need remediation in Biology.

If you think I advocated for public spending on healthcare, you need remediation in reading comprehension.

Thank you for reminding me of Billy Madison's funniest scene, though.

 

[Lursa]

It's interesting how you didn't scrutinize your first inane straw man's failure at all before lunging headfirst into another even worse, even more stupid one.

There is nothing in your post that approximately resembles coherent human expression.

If you think we can magically decide to become pregnant or not, you need remediation in Biology.

If you think I advocated for public spending on healthcare, you need remediation in reading comprehension.

Thank you for reminding me of Billy Madison's funniest scene, though.

I didnt even imply any of those things (regarding your state of mind) in my post. So you werent able to process it properly.

That's ok. I dont care and it stands for itself. :mrgreen:

 

[JayDubya]

I didnt even imply any of those things

Having kids isnt a choice, it's an accident....that's what you're saying? Oops, it just happens, bummer.

You're position seems to be....oopsie! Health care for people's accidents SHOULD be paid for.

:liar

and / or

:screwy

 

[nota bene]

What is this sexual repression coming to surface, jealousy or envy for other's sexual joy, frustration dues to lack of sex or all of the above?
Maybe a new partner or a better one could help....

Maybe laying off the speculative personal attacks will help. I don't see where Bicycle's expressing her opinion on the narcissism, etc. somehow makes her sexually repressed, etc., and with a rhetorical wealth to criticize, no need to stoop to ad hom.

 

[Lursa]

Maybe laying off the speculative personal attacks will help. I don't see where Bicycle's expressing her opinion on the narcissism, etc. somehow makes her sexually repressed, etc., and with a rhetorical wealth to criticize, no need to stoop to ad hom.

You dont? That anger and unfounded rhetoric must be coming from some inner issue(s) since there's been no foundation for it written here.

And that kind of thing clearly damages credibility. That's why it's best to stick to the actual discussion.

 

[nota bene]

You dont? That anger and unfounded rhetoric must be coming from some inner issue(s) since there's been no foundation for it written here.

And that kind of thing clearly damages credibility. That's why it's best to stick to the actual discussion.

You mean rather than devolving into vile speculation about a stranger and her sexual needs and whether they're being met? If so, I agree.

I don't know anything about Bicycle, nor do you or anybody else. But it is possible for someone to be healthy, happy, sexually satisfied, and not envious of anybody...and be either pro-life or pro-choice.

 

[Lursa]

You mean rather than devolving into vile speculation about a stranger and her sexual needs and whether they're being met? If so, I agree.

I don't know anything about Bicycle, nor do you or anybody else. But it is possible for someone to be healthy, happy, sexually satisfied, and not envious of anybody...and be either pro-life or pro-choice.

Well, that wasnt *my* speculation. I just consider that kind of vehemence to be a hindrence to clear thinking and open discussion....and based on some type of agenda. Personal baggage is only one speculation.

It displays the opposite of credibility which is key in convincing others of the veracity of a position.

 

[prometeus]

Maybe laying off the speculative personal attacks will help. I don't see where Bicycle's expressing her opinion on the narcissism, etc. somehow makes her sexually repressed, etc., and with a rhetorical wealth to criticize, no need to stoop to ad hom.

My dear you need to learn to read in context instead of just sucking up to someone who happens, out of ignorance, religious zealotry and other reasons, to share your unfounded position.

 

[Bicycle]

Maybe laying off the speculative personal attacks will help. I don't see where Bicycle's expressing her opinion on the narcissism, etc. somehow makes her sexually repressed, etc., and with a rhetorical wealth to criticize, no need to stoop to ad hom.

This is what I always get...it's what the left attacks with when their depraved lifestyle is identified as depraved, and they are reminded that there are other ways to live that do not result in unplanned pregnancy, abortion, abuse, the spread of sexual diseases, the exploitation of women and children...if you don't support that lifestyle, then you are (horrors) sexually repressed. It's the worst thing they can think of to say about ANYBODY, lol. They truly believe a woman's ONLY purpose in life is to engage in licentious sex. And if they don't #1, engage in such sex, and/or #2, encourage others to..then they are frigid, backwards, repressed, angry, bitter...all the hateful labels that misogynists use to degrade, humiliate, and SILENCE women who don't toe the line.

 

[Bicycle]

Well, that wasnt *my* speculation. I just consider that kind of vehemence to be a hindrence to clear thinking and open discussion....and based on some type of agenda. Personal baggage is only one speculation.

It displays the opposite of credibility which is key in convincing others of the veracity of a position.

Nonsense.

You think that it's acceptable to bully/intimidate women into engaging in risky sex...and you do it yourself in order to promote the abortion industry. Talk about an agenda. Blech.

 

[prometeus]

...if you don't support that lifestyle, then you are (horrors) sexually repressed.

You are deluding yourself again. No one has asked you to support anything, just stay the **** out of other people's lives. It is none of your business who ****s whom, how or how many times or why. All you need to worry is how you get yours, but by the repeated preoccupation with the sex lives of other people it is quote clear that your own is not that great.

They truly believe a woman's ONLY purpose in life is to engage in licentious sex.

As opposed to the missionary position only with the lights turned off when your master deems it appropriate to procreate?

How about you just staying out of other people's sex lives and not inviting the comments?

..all the hateful labels that misogynists use to degrade, humiliate, and SILENCE women who don't toe the line.

You into some form of foot fetish?

 

[Lursa]

Nonsense.

You think that it's acceptable to bully/intimidate women into engaging in risky sex...and you do it yourself in order to promote the abortion industry. Talk about an agenda. Blech.

Bully women into sex? Intimidate them into it? Your fantasy has left orbit.

I "highly encourage" minors to wait for committed relationships (both in person and otherwise) and encourage adult women to have realistic expectations and USE BC if they want to enjoy sex with a partner. By no means to I demonize sex (without marriage) in any way but I ALWAYS believe in and espouse responsibility.

Please tell me why *I* promote the abortion industry. THat is a sensationalistic, extremist, unfounded claim. Please show ANY proof for such an irrational claim. (And btw I dont have sex outside of committed relationships, no matter how great it is. I kind of wish I could, but it's my upbringing...just not within my comfort level.)

 

[JayDubya]

Please tell me why *I* promote the abortion industry

Jeez, I dunno, you only mindlessly parrot their propaganda every day.

 

[RAMOSS]

Bully women into sex? Intimidate them into it? Your fantasy has left orbit.

I "highly encourage" minors to wait for committed relationships (both in person and otherwise) and encourage adult women to have realistic expectations and USE BC if they want to enjoy sex with a partner. By no means to I demonize sex (without marriage) in any way but I ALWAYS believe in and espouse responsibility.

Please tell me why *I* promote the abortion industry. THat is a sensationalistic, extremist, unfounded claim. Please show ANY proof for such an irrational claim. (And btw I dont have sex outside of committed relationships, no matter how great it is. I kind of wish I could, but it's my upbringing...just not within my comfort level.)

And, considering the article you posted about following up on the 'women turned away' from abortion, and their circmstances, I find these claims and accusations of Bicycle to be bizarre and unrealistic.

 

[choiceone]

This is what I always get...it's what the left attacks with when their depraved lifestyle is identified as depraved, and they are reminded that there are other ways to live that do not result in unplanned pregnancy, abortion, abuse, the spread of sexual diseases, the exploitation of women and children...if you don't support that lifestyle, then you are (horrors) sexually repressed. It's the worst thing they can think of to say about ANYBODY, lol. They truly believe a woman's ONLY purpose in life is to engage in licentious sex. And if they don't #1, engage in such sex, and/or #2, encourage others to..then they are frigid, backwards, repressed, angry, bitter...all the hateful labels that misogynists use to degrade, humiliate, and SILENCE women who don't toe the line.

This is nonsense. I'm pro-choice, and there are anti-choicers on these threads who think I'm an extremist in that regard. But I haven't had sex for over 35 years, by choice, and about 20 of those years were prior to menopause and I was quite lucky to be a reasonably attractive looking person for about 30 of those years before aging attacked, so I could've had sex without any difficulty even with strangers for most of those years. I just didn't want to.

My lifestyle doesn't involve anything anyone except an anti-smoker would consider depraved, and even that would be in moderation. I have never had a pregnancy, planned or unplanned, so I have never had an abortion. I don't hit people as I don't believe in physical violence, though I have resorted to it when physically attacked by other persons. I have never had a sexual disease, so I never spread one. I have never exploited women and children and neither have any of my relatives or friends.

I think my only purpose in life is to learn as much as I can, be loving and kind, help people when they need it if I can, and support myself while I'm here by engaging in useful work.

No pro-choicers have called me sexually repressed, though a couple of anti-choicers have considered me psychologically disturbed or what have you.

And believe me, I'm left of center.

So please try to say that I believe a woman's only purpose in life is to engage in licentious sex (!), or that I am frigid (not!), backwards (progressive!), repressed (I openly say what I think and feel!), angry (I love pro-choice people!), bitter (I'm happy I made the main choices in my life and am grateful for them daily!), etc.

All you get from me is assertion of pro-choice values for US law.

If you get pregnant by accident or rape, you can continue your pregnancy if you want to, I'll support your choice, and I'll even support a welfare system that will help you sufficiently that you can keep and raise your own kid if you want to, and you have my 100% psychological support, too.

If you don't want to keep and raise your kid but do want to continue your pregnancy, I'll support your choice, and I'll support government reform of the adoption system so that you can have input on who gets to adopt your kid, if you want.

But if someone else gets pregnant by accident or rape, that person can have a legal abortion if she wants to, within the pre-viability limit already accepted by the Supreme Court, and can have one past that point if there is a serious medically diagnosed threat to her health or life. And she gets my 100% psychological support, too. In fact, if you change your mind and want the right to that choice, you can have it, too.

That's all these debates are about, from one end to another. You either legally let other individual persons control their internal bodies and reproduction in accord with their consciences or you don't.

 

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Stop talking about each other and address the topic. Otherwise, you will be ejected from the thread.

 

[Bicycle]

This is nonsense. I'm pro-choice, and there are anti-choicers on these threads who think I'm an extremist in that regard. But I haven't had sex for over 35 years, by choice, and about 20 of those years were prior to menopause and I was quite lucky to be a reasonably attractive looking person for about 30 of those years before aging attacked, so I could've had sex without any difficulty even with strangers for most of those years. I just didn't want to.

My lifestyle doesn't involve anything anyone except an anti-smoker would consider depraved, and even that would be in moderation. I have never had a pregnancy, planned or unplanned, so I have never had an abortion. I don't hit people as I don't believe in physical violence, though I have resorted to it when physically attacked by other persons. I have never had a sexual disease, so I never spread one. I have never exploited women and children and neither have any of my relatives or friends.

I think my only purpose in life is to learn as much as I can, be loving and kind, help people when they need it if I can, and support myself while I'm here by engaging in useful work.

No pro-choicers have called me sexually repressed, though a couple of anti-choicers have considered me psychologically disturbed or what have you.

And believe me, I'm left of center.

So please try to say that I believe a woman's only purpose in life is to engage in licentious sex (!), or that I am frigid (not!), backwards (progressive!), repressed (I openly say what I think and feel!), angry (I love pro-choice people!), bitter (I'm happy I made the main choices in my life and am grateful for them daily!), etc.

All you get from me is assertion of pro-choice values for US law.

If you get pregnant by accident or rape, you can continue your pregnancy if you want to, I'll support your choice, and I'll even support a welfare system that will help you sufficiently that you can keep and raise your own kid if you want to, and you have my 100% psychological support, too.

If you don't want to keep and raise your kid but do want to continue your pregnancy, I'll support your choice, and I'll support government reform of the adoption system so that you can have input on who gets to adopt your kid, if you want.

But if someone else gets pregnant by accident or rape, that person can have a legal abortion if she wants to, within the pre-viability limit already accepted by the Supreme Court, and can have one past that point if there is a serious medically diagnosed threat to her health or life. And she gets my 100% psychological support, too. In fact, if you change your mind and want the right to that choice, you can have it, too.

That's all these debates are about, from one end to another. You either legally let other individual persons control their internal bodies and reproduction in accord with their consciences or you don't.

They haven't called you sexually repressed because you don't speak out against abortion.

Which was my point. They use it as an insult to attack anybody who challenges the wisdom of their lifestyle in any meaningful way..and eliminating elective abortion definitely challenges their lifestyle.

 

[AGENT J]

They haven't called you sexually repressed because you don't speak out against abortion.

Which was my point. They use it as an insult to attack anybody who challenges the wisdom of their lifestyle in any meaningful way..and eliminating elective abortion definitely challenges their lifestyle.

who is their and what is their lifestyle?

 

[choiceone]

They haven't called you sexually repressed because you don't speak out against abortion.

Which was my point. They use it as an insult to attack anybody who challenges the wisdom of their lifestyle in any meaningful way..and eliminating elective abortion definitely challenges their lifestyle.

Trust me, on other threads, the anti-choicer Ontologuy went on and on telling me how psychologically messed up I was. He did the same to other pro-choicers, too.

What he did was a kind of "gaslighting" - like Boyer in Gaslight, trying to make people believe they are psychologically unstable in order to take advantage of their insecurity, if they happen to be insecure, in order to get one's own way. That is probably even worse than just calling people sexually repressed, because it's a tactic designed to inflict actual psychological damage on people who stand in one's way.

I don't see that anyone did to you anything that serious. After all, some people could take "sexually repressed" as a compliment. . . .

 

[Bicycle]

Trust me, on other threads, the anti-choicer Ontologuy went on and on telling me how psychologically messed up I was. He did the same to other pro-choicers, too.

What he did was a kind of "gaslighting" - like Boyer in Gaslight, trying to make people believe they are psychologically unstable in order to take advantage of their insecurity, if they happen to be insecure, in order to get one's own way. That is probably even worse than just calling people sexually repressed, because it's a tactic designed to inflict actual psychological damage on people who stand in one's way.

I don't see that anyone did to you anything that serious. After all, some people could take "sexually repressed" as a compliment. . . .

Meh, completely irrelevant here.

I don't care if you think it's serious or not, I never commented on the *seriousness* of it, nor do I care who did what to someone else in another thread, or whether or not some people take "sexually repressed" as a compliment. In MY case, in THIS thread, it wasn't meant as a compliment. It was meant as a way to humiliate and discredit a person who advocates for the lives of the unborn, and who promotes the concept of ACCOUNTABILITY and REVERENCE as it applies to sexual relations between people.

And my point is that the pro-death lobby are quick to jump all over WOMEN who dare to imply that the primary use for WOMEN shouldn't be as sex objects. The way they insult and discredit those women is to attack their very sexual identity..in a way they have determined is HATE SPEECH if anyone employs it against say, homosexuals, or poor, minority, single parents.

 

[prometeus]

[SUB]

[/SUB]It was meant as a way to humiliate and discredit a person who advocates for the lives of the unborn, and who promotes the concept of ACCOUNTABILITY and REVERENCE as it applies to sexual relations between people.

Except you do not advocate but label and deny and worst of all you would force the sexually repressive life you are so fond of, onto others.

And my point is that the pro-death lobby

Is this your intelligent way of advocating?

are quick to jump all over WOMEN who dare to imply that the primary use for WOMEN shouldn't be as sex objects.

Who said that? Can you quote it, because without a quote that is just another of your lies.

 

[Bicycle]

[SUB]Except you do not advocate but label and deny and worst of all you would force the sexually repressive life you are so fond of, onto others.

Is this your intelligent way of advocating?

Who said that? Can you quote it, because without a quote that is just another of your lies.

What utter garbage. I have never, and never will, stated that women should be forced in any way, shape or form into any sort of life. That's the job of pimps, human traffickers, and abortion advocates. If you claim differently, I challenge you to quote and link the post where I said that. You can't, because I never have.


Anything else? It seems the sole purpose of that post was to lie about me. So I think I'll put you back on ignore now.