• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pre-term delivery

Could you possibly change the subject any further? Perhaps your last refuge, because it's a sure sign of losing an argument.
🤷‍♂️
Mankind has been domesticating dogs for 15,000 years, and deliberately breeding them for at least 9,500 years. Virtually every distinguishable dog breed was created in exactly the same way. For thousands of years, whenever a dog owner wanted to breed any confirmation or temperament into, or out of, their domesticated dogs, they simply killed the ones in the litter that exhibited any unwanted traits. Even as recently as a hundred years ago, nobody was performing spaying and neutering operations on their non conforming dogs to control their breeding. People couldn't afford to feed unproductive animals. Dogs that wouldn't fulfill their intended use have been slaughtered for millennia, no different than any domesticated animal was.
It's called breeding.
so Noem killing the dog because she didn't want it anymore was ok ? you're ok with it, no issues at all with it ?


You're not fit to judge what is responsible sex for somebody else. Only yourself. Period.

And a man should have no autonomy over a woman. None. Alas, even to this day, most of the misogynist planet does not subscribe to that. Throughout most of history, women have been considered the property of men. Fortunately now, at least in Western civilization, they've become recognized as co-equal first class citizens, with equal rights to men, including bodily autonomy.

It's a waste of time to argue false equivalencies with me. Why do you do it? To make a fool of yourself? A man's bodily autonomy is never at stake, nor will it ever be. The days of creating eunuchs are past.

then be fair and don't have autonomy over men

why isn't it the same ? woman wants to keep a baby the man doesn't, it has nothing to do with the man, his money, his choice .... right ?
 
so Noem killing the dog because she didn't want it anymore was ok ? you're ok with it, no issues at all with it ?

then be fair and don't have autonomy over men

why isn't it the same ? woman wants to keep a baby the man doesn't, it has nothing to do with the man, his money, his choice .... right ?

Why are you answering another question with more questions? You are the finest forum example of signaling a weak argument by hiding behind more questions. Well, top 5 anyway.
 
so Noem killing the dog because she didn't want it anymore was ok ? you're ok with it, no issues at all with it ?




then be fair and don't have autonomy over men

why isn't it the same ? woman wants to keep a baby the man doesn't, it has nothing to do with the man, his money, his choice .... right ?
So all of this was in service of you being able to be a deadbeat dad?
 
you avoid answering and we both know why .... killing an unborn is a-ok with you ... killing a dog is horrific ... am I right ?
That's hilarious, especially how you've repeatedly avoided answering my questions throughout this entire discussion. So tell me, what is the value of human life? What is this "compelling argument" of yours? Care to answer or are you going to avoid the questions yet again!
 
That's hilarious, especially how you've repeatedly avoided answering my questions throughout this entire discussion. So tell me, what is the value of human life? What is this "compelling argument" of yours? Care to answer or are you going to avoid the questions yet again!

I have often - you don't value human life. That's ok, some people just don't. Nothing I say will sway you. You don't have children so you do not know or understand having kids. I'm answering - you just don't like the answers.

Are you asking me to try and convince you human life is valuable? Are you soul searching or something? needing help ?
 
I have often -
Cite the post/s then!
you don't value human life. That's ok, some people just don't. Nothing I say will sway you. You don't have children so you do not know or understand having kids. I'm answering - you just don't like the answers.
I never mentioned my family status or value. You're making ignorant assertions in a cowardly attempt to deflect from questions and challenges.
Are you asking me to try and convince you human life is valuable? Are you soul searching or something? needing help ?
I'm asking you to explain or quantify the "value' of human life, since that is your assertion. You said you could make a "compelling argument," which you have yet to provide. Clearly it's all BS talk since you are unable to do so. Your attemot to make things personal or about me only further proves that!
 
Cite the post/s then!

I never mentioned my family status or value. You're making ignorant assertions in a cowardly attempt to deflect from questions and challenges.

and you've never once denied it - and for that I'll give you props, you don't seem to be a liar on things like that like most are. You own what you believe or in this case what you don't believe in. I applaud it.

I'm asking you to explain or quantify the "value' of human life, since that is your assertion. You said you could make a "compelling argument," which you have yet to provide. Clearly it's all BS talk since you are unable to do so. Your attemot to make things personal or about me only further proves that!

how old are you ?

and you don't understand value of life ? and you think I can teach you through a message board ?
 
and you've never once denied it - and for that I'll give you props, you don't seem to be a liar on things like that like most are. You own what you believe or in this case what you don't believe in. I applaud it.



how old are you ?

and you don't understand value of life ? and you think I can teach you through a message board ?

Why are you answering other questions with more questions? You are the finest forum example of signaling a weak argument by hiding behind more questions. Well, top 5 anyway.
 
We already absorb the costs for medical needs either via higher costs passed on or through taxes based on economic hardship . That's the nature of our current system. I know I don't mind.
So you agree that we should not cut Medicaid
 
so Noem killing the dog because she didn't want it anymore was ok ? you're ok with it, no issues at all with it ?
None.
then be fair and don't have autonomy over men

why isn't it the same ? woman wants to keep a baby the man doesn't, it has nothing to do with the man, his money, his choice .... right ?
Her body - her choice.
 
So you agree that we should not cut Medicaid
I am fully supportive of Medicaid as both a moral and common sense public policy response to indigent health care., and fully supportive of Medicaid treating abortion as they would any other medical procedure. I think I may have been misunderstood. My point is that we have to pay for indigent healthcare either way so the bill will be ours to pay.

Its logical to do so through a means tested program where the public has a say in criteria through congressional or administrative rules, rather than via increased costs attached to our own medical bills as we absorb those costs the way hospitals and doctors want us to. I can't imagine me calling myself a liberal and wanting to gut Medicaid! There is nothing remotely 'classical' about my liberalism. The only way we can avoid paying those bills entirely, is to encourage hospitals and doctors to refuse indigent patients so that their unpaid costs cannot impact their bottom line or ours. Not in favor of encouraging massive death from medical neglect based on income.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing how cheap and simple things get when killing people is on the table.

Well they’re trying to understand why the folks who scream you are killing a child suddenly lose interest in the welfare of the child ten seconds after it comes out of the playdoh fun factory of life.
 
and you've never once denied it - and for that I'll give you props, you don't seem to be a liar on things like that like most are. You own what you believe or in this case what you don't believe in. I applaud it.
Trying to make it about me, eh? How about answering the questions: what is the "value" of life? What is you're "compellong argument?" You keep saying "value" and that you've alreasy explained it. Yet you fail to cite the posts where you've done so! All you have is cowardly deflections and meaningless rhetoric!
how old are you ?
What difference does it make? Or are you trying to get personal?
and you don't understand value of life ? and you think I can teach you through a message board ?
In other words, your entire spiel regarding "value" is just a bunch of sanctimonious bullshit! You bring up "value" but can't even explain it yourself! All talk and no substance!
 
Well they’re trying to understand why the folks who scream you are killing a child suddenly lose interest in the welfare of the child ten seconds after it comes out of the playdoh fun factory of life.

Let's try this:

"Well they’re trying to understand why the folks who scream you are killing a 10-year-old suddenly lose interest in the welfare of the 10- year-old ten seconds after the child is out of danger."

So any screaming about killing 10 year olds is disingenuous for same reason. Correct?
 
Last edited:
yes and choices have consequences

I highly encourage women who don't want babies to not have sex OR be very very careful with having sex

I'd HIGHLY discourage them from casual sex/unsafe sex

but hey, they have the freedom to choose ... and if they get pregnant? many states will hold them accountable to their actions and won't allow them to have their unborn babies killed
Why aren't you advising men to be very very careful when having sex. 50% of sexually active men refuse to use a condom. Women if they are not using a highly effective contraceptive are at 85% risk of getting pregnant.

I don't hear you discouraging men from casual or unsafe sex.

Women are to be held accountable for their actions but men are not, yet they cause 38,000 unwanted pregnancies/year by their bullying and coercing.

Every state that holds women, only, responsible for unplanned and unwanted pregnancies also has the responsibility for providing women with the most highly effective contraceptives that they control if they are really serious about ending or reducing abortion. Most states that have banned abortion are not doing this. In fact many are talking about restricting contraceptives. It's at this point that one begins to understand that controlling women's reproductive is the goal, not reducing abortion. As we have seen since Dobbs, the abortion rate is increasing.

This isn't about not killing fetuses. It's about controlling women.
 
Why aren't you advising men to be very very careful when having sex. 50% of sexually active men refuse to use a condom. Women if they are not using a highly effective contraceptive are at 85% risk of getting pregnant.
I have and those 50% not wearing condoms? the women know what they're doing too - this is a both parties responsible kinds deal


I don't hear you discouraging men from casual or unsafe sex.
then you've not paid attention


Women are to be held accountable for their actions but men are not, yet they cause 38,000 unwanted pregnancies/year by their bullying and coercing.
bow you're being intentionally dishonest - you need to go back, search the forums, and see where I have over and over and over insisted both men and women bear responsibility for their actions

stop being dishonest please, its a bad bad look
 
Let's try this:

"Well they’re trying to understand why the folks who scream you are killing a 10-year-old suddenly lose interest in the welfare of the 10- year-old ten seconds after the child is out of danger."

So any screaming about killing 10 year olds is disingenuous for same reason. Correct?


Of course it's not remotely the same. The 10 yr old isnt inside someone else, risking her life, her health, and her job, her responsibility for others, her obligations to others. It doenst violate her right to consent to her own life and body and reproduction as the individual moral agent, protected by the Constitution, that she is, to protect something inside her body.
 
Let's try this:

"Well they’re trying to understand why the folks who scream you are killing a 10-year-old suddenly lose interest in the welfare of the 10- year-old ten seconds after the child is out of danger."

So any screaming about killing 10 year olds is disingenuous for same reason. Correct?
In that specific analogy to killing the fetus/child... yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom