As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

ITT the abortions of strawmen

Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
edited January 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
jaserella wrote: »
Jebu wrote: »
How well is McCain doing with the fundies? He's been cozying up to them a lot in the past few years but I have no idea if it's actually had any effect on how the Christian Right view him.

He's not prolife enough, but if he's the one who will save us from Rudy/Obama/Hillary, I will vote for him.

Let me make this crystal fucking clear: you are the reason there will be no substantive change on abortion in this nation, ever.

Salvation122 on
«13456718

Posts

  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    Jebu wrote: »
    How well is McCain doing with the fundies? He's been cozying up to them a lot in the past few years but I have no idea if it's actually had any effect on how the Christian Right view him.

    He's not prolife enough, but if he's the one who will save us from Rudy/Obama/Hillary, I will vote for him.

    Let me make this crystal fucking clear: you are the reason there will be no substantive change on abortion in this nation, ever.

    Awesome!

    Well I guess not for anti-abortion people...

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    Jebu wrote: »
    How well is McCain doing with the fundies? He's been cozying up to them a lot in the past few years but I have no idea if it's actually had any effect on how the Christian Right view him.

    He's not prolife enough, but if he's the one who will save us from Rudy/Obama/Hillary, I will vote for him.

    Let me make this crystal fucking clear: you are the reason there will be no substantive change on abortion in this nation, ever.

    ???

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Jebu wrote: »
    How well is McCain doing with the fundies? He's been cozying up to them a lot in the past few years but I have no idea if it's actually had any effect on how the Christian Right view him.

    He's not prolife enough, but if he's the one who will save us from Rudy/Obama/Hillary, I will vote for him.

    Let me make this crystal fucking clear: you are the reason there will be no substantive change on abortion in this nation, ever.

    ???

    As long as the republican party is relying on the irrational religious vote, they'll always posture like they're really going to ban abortion this time, nationwide, for real, and then when they get elected they'll do some little shit to appease the people who boosted their corrupt asses into office and not actually address the "issue".

    They do this because if there ever actually is a nationwide ban on abortion, suddenly some 50%+ of American voters will actually have rights that they used to take for granted removed from them, and the political pendulum swings back the other way.

    But hey, if you can find a time in history (any example, really) when Americans had civil liberties that were enjoyed by the mainstream suddenly removed and just fucking put up with it, feel free to pull out examples.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Jebu wrote: »
    How well is McCain doing with the fundies? He's been cozying up to them a lot in the past few years but I have no idea if it's actually had any effect on how the Christian Right view him.

    He's not prolife enough, but if he's the one who will save us from Rudy/Obama/Hillary, I will vote for him.

    Let me make this crystal fucking clear: you are the reason there will be no substantive change on abortion in this nation, ever.

    ???

    As long as the republican party is relying on the irrational religious vote, they'll always posture like they're really going to ban abortion this time, nationwide, for real, and then when they get elected they'll do some little shit to appease the people who boosted their corrupt asses into office and not actually address the "issue".

    They do this because if there ever actually is a nationwide ban on abortion, suddenly some 50%+ of American voters will actually have rights that they used to take for granted removed from them, and the political pendulum swings back the other way.

    Not to mention the president really has fuck all to do with the abortion issue aside from appointing Supreme Court justices and hoping for the best. He can't enact any law to change it (legislative) and he can't revoke Roe v Wade (judiciary). So really, anyone who bases their presidential vote on abortion is, in my opinion, a bit of a fucking retard.

    Derrick on
    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Jebu wrote: »
    How well is McCain doing with the fundies? He's been cozying up to them a lot in the past few years but I have no idea if it's actually had any effect on how the Christian Right view him.

    He's not prolife enough, but if he's the one who will save us from Rudy/Obama/Hillary, I will vote for him.

    Let me make this crystal fucking clear: you are the reason there will be no substantive change on abortion in this nation, ever.

    ???

    As long as the republican party is relying on the irrational religious vote, they'll always posture like they're really going to ban abortion this time, nationwide, for real, and then when they get elected they'll do some little shit to appease the people who boosted their corrupt asses into office and not actually address the "issue".

    They do this because if there ever actually is a nationwide ban on abortion, suddenly some 50%+ of American voters will actually have rights that they used to take for granted removed from them, and the political pendulum swings back the other way.

    My whole point was that this time, because SCOTUS seats WILL be up for nomination again, evangelical are still going to come out in huge numbers to vote for a prolife candiidate in the general election. I just wondered why I was being cursed at for stating that fact.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Jebu wrote: »
    How well is McCain doing with the fundies? He's been cozying up to them a lot in the past few years but I have no idea if it's actually had any effect on how the Christian Right view him.

    He's not prolife enough, but if he's the one who will save us from Rudy/Obama/Hillary, I will vote for him.

    Let me make this crystal fucking clear: you are the reason there will be no substantive change on abortion in this nation, ever.

    ???
    Wherein Sal explains basic political theory

    Quite a few (stupid) people will vote one way or another based solely upon a single issue. [For the sake of this discussion, I shall use the examples of abortion and gay rights.] These people will only ever vote for someone who shares their given view on the issue. They will vote this way in perpetuity, or they will not vote at all. They will not vote for those that hold conflicting views.

    Politicians, contrary to popular belief, are not stupid. At the very least those running the parties are not. They cannot afford to be. There are approximately 17.8 metric fucktons of dollar bills riding on them not being stupid. They will therefore do what they can to both hold on to voters and to expand their voting base. This should be intuitively obvious.

    What is not intuitively obvious is that those goals are better served by keeping highly divisive issues with a great deal of emotional involvement around for as long as they possibly can. Pro-life voters, after all - at least those who are rabid about it - are not going to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Nor will those who favor gay rights vote for someone who desires a constitutional amendment against homosexual marriages. If these issues were ever actually resolved, those voters might be attracted to the other party. Therefore, as long as there remains a sizable number of people who will always vote based upon a given issue, it makes absolutely no sense to take anything more than token action on that issue.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    That's not such a hot idea Deadelus, women's suffrage was voted in and then reversed in several states quite a while before the federal amendment went through. When abortion rights get repealed in a nation, there's usually a good few decades of dead women and children before the social problems that result from the inability to control fertility become too much for the population at large. see: Romania. Additional reading regarding the practicalities, for the hard of thinking, but if you want to talk about this topic any more PM and I'll do a split, or start a thread yourself. This is the primaries thread.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Jebu wrote: »
    How well is McCain doing with the fundies? He's been cozying up to them a lot in the past few years but I have no idea if it's actually had any effect on how the Christian Right view him.

    He's not prolife enough, but if he's the one who will save us from Rudy/Obama/Hillary, I will vote for him.

    Let me make this crystal fucking clear: you are the reason there will be no substantive change on abortion in this nation, ever.

    ???

    As long as the republican party is relying on the irrational religious vote, they'll always posture like they're really going to ban abortion this time, nationwide, for real, and then when they get elected they'll do some little shit to appease the people who boosted their corrupt asses into office and not actually address the "issue".

    They do this because if there ever actually is a nationwide ban on abortion, suddenly some 50%+ of American voters will actually have rights that they used to take for granted removed from them, and the political pendulum swings back the other way.

    But hey, if you can find a time in history (any example, really) when Americans had civil liberties that were enjoyed by the mainstream suddenly removed and just fucking put up with it, feel free to pull out examples.

    Um, the Patriot Act. Jose Padilla.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    But doesn't a candidates position on abortion actually quite matter now? whoever get elected will get to appoint atleast one judge (most likely anway) and so if they are against abortion they'll probably appoint an anti abortion judge, and Roe v Wade will get turned over, whereas a pro abortion candidate would nominate judges who want to keep Roe v Wade.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    fjafjan wrote: »
    But doesn't it actually quite matter now? whoever get elected will get to appoint atleast one judge (most likely anway) and so if they are against abortion they'll probably appoint an anti abortion judge, and Roe v Wade will get turned over, whereas a pro abortion candidate would nominate judges who want to keep Roe v Wade.

    Thank you. That's all I am saying.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Jebu wrote: »
    How well is McCain doing with the fundies? He's been cozying up to them a lot in the past few years but I have no idea if it's actually had any effect on how the Christian Right view him.

    He's not prolife enough, but if he's the one who will save us from Rudy/Obama/Hillary, I will vote for him.

    Let me make this crystal fucking clear: you are the reason there will be no substantive change on abortion in this nation, ever.

    ???

    As long as the republican party is relying on the irrational religious vote, they'll always posture like they're really going to ban abortion this time, nationwide, for real, and then when they get elected they'll do some little shit to appease the people who boosted their corrupt asses into office and not actually address the "issue".

    They do this because if there ever actually is a nationwide ban on abortion, suddenly some 50%+ of American voters will actually have rights that they used to take for granted removed from them, and the political pendulum swings back the other way.

    But hey, if you can find a time in history (any example, really) when Americans had civil liberties that were enjoyed by the mainstream suddenly removed and just fucking put up with it, feel free to pull out examples.

    Um, the Patriot Act. Jose Padilla.

    Yeah, the Patriot Act totally affected a sizable chunk of the population, right?

    How many times a day do you or anyone you know deal with the Patriot Act? Jose Padilla is a guy. We're talking about half the population. Banning abortion would go over about as well as Prohibition.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    fjafjan wrote: »
    But doesn't it actually quite matter now? whoever get elected will get to appoint atleast one judge (most likely anway) and so if they are against abortion they'll probably appoint an anti abortion judge, and Roe v Wade will get turned over, whereas a pro abortion candidate would nominate judges who want to keep Roe v Wade.

    There will be zero meaningful movement on RvW during our lifetimes for precisely the reasons I just described. While the judiciary retains a degree of independence from the national party system I find it flatly impossible to believe that they are fully removed from it, and believe that they will more or less keep the status quo around because it is to the benefit of both parties to do so.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    fjafjan wrote: »
    But doesn't it actually quite matter now? whoever get elected will get to appoint atleast one judge (most likely anway) and so if they are against abortion they'll probably appoint an anti abortion judge, and Roe v Wade will get turned over, whereas a pro abortion candidate would nominate judges who want to keep Roe v Wade.

    There will be zero meaningful movement on RvW during our lifetimes for precisely the reasons I just described. While the judiciary retains a degree of independence from the national party system I find it flatly impossible to believe that they are fully removed from it, and believe that they will more or less keep the status quo around because it is to the benefit of both parties to do so.

    If you think so. I just think it will be unavoidale for there to be movement towards it being challenged and overturned if a prolife canidate wins the whitehouse. Obviously they will pick 1 if not 2 SC justices.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    "Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts." --Academician Prokhor Zakharov, For I Have Tasted the Fruit

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    Jebu wrote: »
    How well is McCain doing with the fundies? He's been cozying up to them a lot in the past few years but I have no idea if it's actually had any effect on how the Christian Right view him.

    He's not prolife enough, but if he's the one who will save us from Rudy/Obama/Hillary, I will vote for him.

    Let me make this crystal fucking clear: you are the reason there will be no substantive change on abortion in this nation, ever.

    ???

    As long as the republican party is relying on the irrational religious vote, they'll always posture like they're really going to ban abortion this time, nationwide, for real, and then when they get elected they'll do some little shit to appease the people who boosted their corrupt asses into office and not actually address the "issue".

    They do this because if there ever actually is a nationwide ban on abortion, suddenly some 50%+ of American voters will actually have rights that they used to take for granted removed from them, and the political pendulum swings back the other way.

    But hey, if you can find a time in history (any example, really) when Americans had civil liberties that were enjoyed by the mainstream suddenly removed and just fucking put up with it, feel free to pull out examples.

    Um, the Patriot Act. Jose Padilla.

    Yeah, the Patriot Act totally affected a sizable chunk of the population, right?

    How many times a day do you or anyone you know deal with the Patriot Act? Jose Padilla is a guy. We're talking about half the population. Banning abortion would go over about as well as Prohibition.

    The government can at anytime retract your U.S citizenship, and hold you as an enemy combatant for YEARS without access to a lawyer. Maybe "half the population" is not concerned, but I think they should be.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    AndorienAndorien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Even if there isn't a huge backlash from women by RvW being overturned, the Right would lose one of their most energizing issues, and could no longer count on it backing just by bashing Abortion.

    Andorien on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    "Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts." --Academician Prokhor Zakharov, For I Have Tasted the Fruit

    So if the GOP wins you think a prolife prez would pick prochoice justices just to keep abortion as a future campaign issue?

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    fjafjan wrote: »
    But doesn't it actually quite matter now? whoever get elected will get to appoint atleast one judge (most likely anway) and so if they are against abortion they'll probably appoint an anti abortion judge, and Roe v Wade will get turned over, whereas a pro abortion candidate would nominate judges who want to keep Roe v Wade.

    There will be zero meaningful movement on RvW during our lifetimes for precisely the reasons I just described. While the judiciary retains a degree of independence from the national party system I find it flatly impossible to believe that they are fully removed from it, and believe that they will more or less keep the status quo around because it is to the benefit of both parties to do so.

    Except you then probably haven't listened to the experts on the Supreme Court who, all that I have heard, agree that whoever gets elected is very important in large part because of who they will appoint to the supreme court. Someone like Huckabee will probably appoint a religious fundamentalist type, and that person will tip the scales on overturning Roe V Wade. That is what is going to happen, now if individual states dare ban abortion I don't know but that Roe v Wade won't get overturned because they can't use it as an argument I find very doubtful, if those voters are getting duped they would turn their heads just as easily.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Andorien wrote: »
    Even if there isn't a huge backlash from women by RvW being overturned, the Right would lose one of their most energizing issues, and could no longer count on it backing just by bashing Abortion.

    They would still have the obsession over "the gays trying to destroy traditional marriage, and our children, ect." Though I do admit they would lose me @ that point.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    "Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts." --Academician Prokhor Zakharov, For I Have Tasted the Fruit

    So if the GOP wins you think a prolife prez would pick prochoice justices just to keep abortion as a future campaign issue?

    If the GOP wins, they'd pick Republican justices, who would act pretty much the same way as a Republican senator or president in that position.

    What kind of fantasy world do you live in that Supreme Court justices are immune to the same political bullshit that everyone else who lives in DC and gets paid a government salary puts up with?

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    "Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts." --Academician Prokhor Zakharov, For I Have Tasted the Fruit

    So if the GOP wins you think a prolife prez would pick prochoice justices just to keep abortion as a future campaign issue?

    If the GOP wins, they'd pick Republican justices, who would act pretty much the same way as a Republican senator or president in that position.

    What kind of fantasy world do you live in that Supreme Court justices are immune to the same political bullshit that everyone else who lives in DC and gets paid a government salary puts up with?

    They don't have to deal with re-election always in the back of their minds, so I thought that would cut out much of the "political bul****". Enlighten me if this is not true. Why does everyone curse in their responses to me? :P

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Its like you people are stupid, or something.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    jaserella wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    jaserella wrote: »
    "Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts." --Academician Prokhor Zakharov, For I Have Tasted the Fruit

    So if the GOP wins you think a prolife prez would pick prochoice justices just to keep abortion as a future campaign issue?

    If the GOP wins, they'd pick Republican justices, who would act pretty much the same way as a Republican senator or president in that position.

    What kind of fantasy world do you live in that Supreme Court justices are immune to the same political bullshit that everyone else who lives in DC and gets paid a government salary puts up with?

    They don't have to deal with re-election always in the back of their minds, so I thought that would cut out much of the "political bul****". Enlighten me if this is not true.
    They have every bit as much pressure put on them, they just don't have to deal with reelection. There's skeletons in everyone's closet, and you better believe the major players in the parties know exactly where they are.
    Why does everyone curse in their responses to me? :P
    We curse a lot. Nothing personal.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I want to stress that this isn't some kind of conspiracy or something here; it's just the natural way shit functions. If you've ever wondered why nothing fucking happens in Washington on this and some similar issues, now you know.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.

    Also this is the reason SCOTUS will never overturn Roe v. Wade. Stop deluding yourselves.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.
    pffft. banning a safe method of removing dead or dying hopelessly-deformed fetuses, or ones that are endangering a mother's life, while leaving leaving a far more dangerous-to-the-mother (and more horrible, which is only relevant since the alleged horror of the original method was apparently legally relevant) procedure as an 'alternative' was absolutely a victory for these people. They couldn't be happier if they'd finally managed to ban the pill.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.
    pffft. banning a safe method of removing dead or dying hopelessly-deformed fetuses, or ones that are endangering a mother's life, while leaving leaving a far more dangerous-to-the-mother (and more horrible, which is only relevant since the alleged horror of the original method was apparently legally relevant) procedure as an 'alternative' was absolutely a victory for these people. They couldn't be happier if they'd finally managed to ban the pill.
    Why there are women in the "pro-life" movement is beyond me. It flabberghasts me on the same level that the notion of Jews being in the Neo Nazi movement does.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.
    pffft. banning a safe method of removing dead or dying hopelessly-deformed fetuses, or ones that are endangering a mother's life, while leaving leaving a far more dangerous-to-the-mother (and more horrible, which is only relevant since the alleged horror of the original method was apparently legally relevant) procedure as an 'alternative' was absolutely a victory for these people. They couldn't be happier if they'd finally managed to ban the pill.
    Why there are women in the "pro-life" movement is beyond me. It flabberghasts me on the same level that the notion of Jews being in the Neo Nazi movement does.
    Stockholm Syndrome. Don't worry, most of them turn up at the back of the abortion clinics they like to picket at one time or another, demanding to be allowed to jump the queue and skip any form of counselling.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.
    pffft. banning a safe method of removing dead or dying hopelessly-deformed fetuses, or ones that are endangering a mother's life, while leaving leaving a far more dangerous-to-the-mother (and more horrible, which is only relevant since the alleged horror of the original method was apparently legally relevant) procedure as an 'alternative' was absolutely a victory for these people. They couldn't be happier if they'd finally managed to ban the pill.
    Why there are women in the "pro-life" movement is beyond me. It flabberghasts me on the same level that the notion of Jews being in the Neo Nazi movement does.
    I just wish that "pro-life" politicians would stop being the same politicians that want to cut, for instance, government money going toward day-care programs. Then it would at least seem genuine, even if I don't agree with the stance. As it is it's blatant posturing. Pick one group or the other to suck off; you can't do both at once.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.
    pffft. banning a safe method of removing dead or dying hopelessly-deformed fetuses, or ones that are endangering a mother's life, while leaving leaving a far more dangerous-to-the-mother (and more horrible, which is only relevant since the alleged horror of the original method was apparently legally relevant) procedure as an 'alternative' was absolutely a victory for these people. They couldn't be happier if they'd finally managed to ban the pill.
    Why there are women in the "pro-life" movement is beyond me. It flabberghasts me on the same level that the notion of Jews being in the Neo Nazi movement does.

    Lots of people who call themselves pro-life are actually pro-choice and don't realize it. I guess because they can't read, or something.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.
    pffft. banning a safe method of removing dead or dying hopelessly-deformed fetuses, or ones that are endangering a mother's life, while leaving leaving a far more dangerous-to-the-mother (and more horrible, which is only relevant since the alleged horror of the original method was apparently legally relevant) procedure as an 'alternative' was absolutely a victory for these people. They couldn't be happier if they'd finally managed to ban the pill.
    Why there are women in the "pro-life" movement is beyond me. It flabberghasts me on the same level that the notion of Jews being in the Neo Nazi movement does.
    Stockholm Syndrome. Don't worry, most of them turn up at the back of the abortion clinics they like to picket at one time or another, demanding to be allowed to jump the queue and skip any form of counselling.

    Are you seriously saying that women who disagrees with you are mentally deficient?

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    Are you seriously saying that women who disagrees with you are mentally deficient?

    Is that in my post? Where is that in my post?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    what we have here is failure to communicate

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.
    pffft. banning a safe method of removing dead or dying hopelessly-deformed fetuses, or ones that are endangering a mother's life, while leaving leaving a far more dangerous-to-the-mother (and more horrible, which is only relevant since the alleged horror of the original method was apparently legally relevant) procedure as an 'alternative' was absolutely a victory for these people. They couldn't be happier if they'd finally managed to ban the pill.
    Why there are women in the "pro-life" movement is beyond me. It flabberghasts me on the same level that the notion of Jews being in the Neo Nazi movement does.

    So the fact that there are women that believe humanity starts at the beginning of development rather than birth, the development of cognizance, or any other equally arbritrary standard amazes you the same way that a person advocating the annihilation of his own people does?

    What?

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Are you seriously saying that women who disagrees with you are mentally deficient?

    Is that in my post? Where is that in my post?

    Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological disorder holmes

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Stockholm Syndrome. Don't worry, most of them turn up at the back of the abortion clinics they like to picket at one time or another, demanding to be allowed to jump the queue and skip any form of counselling.

    Are you seriously saying that women who disagrees with you are mentally deficient?

    In fairness, I often find the same thing.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Are you seriously saying that women who disagrees with you are mentally deficient?

    Is that in my post? Where is that in my post?

    Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological disorder holmes

    Its a known condition, not a 'deficiency'. You should probably try knowing what things are before posting about them. Also, don't lie about my posts.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.
    pffft. banning a safe method of removing dead or dying hopelessly-deformed fetuses, or ones that are endangering a mother's life, while leaving leaving a far more dangerous-to-the-mother (and more horrible, which is only relevant since the alleged horror of the original method was apparently legally relevant) procedure as an 'alternative' was absolutely a victory for these people. They couldn't be happier if they'd finally managed to ban the pill.
    Why there are women in the "pro-life" movement is beyond me. It flabberghasts me on the same level that the notion of Jews being in the Neo Nazi movement does.
    Stockholm Syndrome.
    I love that song.

    But srsly, I hear you. I remember someone linking an article in the last thread about an abortionists experiences with Pro-Lifers seeking to terminate. "My Abortion is the Only Righteous One," or something like that. Great article, and lots of unexpectedly funny bits.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    jaserellajaserella Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Does anyone else besides me remember the whole thing with SCOTUS banning "partial-birth abortions" last year? I seem to remember the fundies declaring a victory with that decision, despite the fact that it wasn't actually a victory in any real meaningful way.

    Also this is the reason SCOTUS will never overturn Roe v. Wade. Stop deluding yourselves.

    From your article:

    " according to Scalia, "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right."[9]

    "Of the Court's current members, Justices Scalia and Thomas seem to have the most faith in the determinacy of the legal texts that come before the Court. It should come as no surprise that they also seem the most willing to overrule the Court's past decisions."

    Scalia and Thomas are the justices that are always pointed to as models for the type of justices that a prolife prez should nominate.

    And for the partial birth decision, yes there are still the same number of abortions, they just rip of pieces off and bring them out of the uterus instead of delivering most of the way and then crushing the head while still inside of the mothers body.

    It was considered important because it was the first restriction placed by the SC on abortioin since RvW, or at least that's the argument. It also signaled how close we were to a winning challenge if we can just get 1 or 2 more justices.

    jaserella on
    " and then wants us to sing God Bless America! No,No,No!! Not God bless America, G-d damn America. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE" :lol:
    527 heaven
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I don't see a connection between Stockholm Syndrome, a psychological response wherein a hostage shows loyalty to the captor, and the belief that a zygote is a human being.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sign In or Register to comment.