|
|
On October 23 2012 08:30 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:27 Darknat wrote:
Birth control just encourages people to have sex and the death penalty is irrelevant to the abortion debate. ...just encourages people to have sex? Is this bad or something? Sex is evil now? Like, I don't understand your point, even if it was true. Oh, let's just throw out all the economic benefits of birth control for the purposes of this conversation.
Sex is inherently wrong because it is blatant theft of semen from sack.
Also, Jesus states many times in the bible that it was NO COINCIDENCE that satan came as a talking snake, resembling a talking penis.
|
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach.
|
United States4130 Posts
On October 23 2012 08:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 08:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Well gee, you would think pro-life people would be all for handing out birth control like goddamn candy if they actually felt that way. They would also be against death penalty, but the life of a 3 weeks foetus is more important and holy than the one of an actual person if he happened to do something really bad yaknow? Eh, I've never bought this argument, even as a pro-choicer. Death Penalty is for criminals of serious crimes, not babies. Not that I'm for the death penalty, but I've never felt that was inconsistent. What I do think is inconsistent is people refusing to pay for people's birth control, refusing to pay for people's abortions, and totally fine with paying for people's pregnancies. You know, the most expensive of the three by far? Well if you want to be pro-life, then start by not killing actual people. Simple as that. What they did is irrelevant when it comes to the sanctity of life isn't it? "Pro-life" my ass.
Eh. Pro-life is just a label.
Most Pro-lifers believe that abortion should be legal, just with restrictions. So it becomes like 80%+ of the population that think it should be legal. Not many people are as extreme as superfan.
On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach.
Bullshit. I call fucking bullshit. You should be encouraging government programs of all possible kinds if you believe that abortion is murder.
|
On October 23 2012 08:33 KING CHARLIE :D wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:30 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:27 Darknat wrote:
Birth control just encourages people to have sex and the death penalty is irrelevant to the abortion debate. ...just encourages people to have sex? Is this bad or something? Sex is evil now? Like, I don't understand your point, even if it was true. Oh, let's just throw out all the economic benefits of birth control for the purposes of this conversation. Sex is inherently wrong because it is blatant theft of semen from sack. Also, Jesus states many times in the bible that it was NO COINCIDENCE that satan came as a talking snake, resembling a talking penis.
Thanks to provide the very exact place. And exact quote.
"Sex is inherently wrong"... Funny, you would thinnk stuff have changed since the XIIth century. In fact no. How wonderful a specie we are!
|
On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach.
You fear federal overreach more than dead babies?
Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening?
|
On October 23 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the death penalty to abortion is juvenile. The two are easily distinguishable.
Sure, if you look at it on a huge scale-but the motives are the same.
Keeping criminals that have committed death-penalty worthy crimes is deemed to have a negative effect on society, so they get killed.
Keeping an unwanted child alive that could lead to disaster in a multitude of ways for the family is deemed to have a negative effect by the family, so they get killed.
|
On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach.
I agree, though with less concern for federal overreach.
(joke) prediction: because the debate moderator is an old white guy, he's going to lose the debate tonight.
|
United States4130 Posts
On October 23 2012 08:33 KING CHARLIE :D wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:30 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:27 Darknat wrote:
Birth control just encourages people to have sex and the death penalty is irrelevant to the abortion debate. ...just encourages people to have sex? Is this bad or something? Sex is evil now? Like, I don't understand your point, even if it was true. Oh, let's just throw out all the economic benefits of birth control for the purposes of this conversation. Sex is inherently wrong because it is blatant theft of semen from sack. Also, Jesus states many times in the bible that it was NO COINCIDENCE that satan came as a talking snake, resembling a talking penis.
LOL Dude, are you reading like the Freudian bible? Who is your pastor? I want to subscribe to his newsletter because this sounds like comedic gold.
What else does Jesus say about sex being evil? I really want to know!
|
On October 23 2012 08:34 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 08:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Well gee, you would think pro-life people would be all for handing out birth control like goddamn candy if they actually felt that way. They would also be against death penalty, but the life of a 3 weeks foetus is more important and holy than the one of an actual person if he happened to do something really bad yaknow? Eh, I've never bought this argument, even as a pro-choicer. Death Penalty is for criminals of serious crimes, not babies. Not that I'm for the death penalty, but I've never felt that was inconsistent. What I do think is inconsistent is people refusing to pay for people's birth control, refusing to pay for people's abortions, and totally fine with paying for people's pregnancies. You know, the most expensive of the three by far? Well if you want to be pro-life, then start by not killing actual people. Simple as that. What they did is irrelevant when it comes to the sanctity of life isn't it? "Pro-life" my ass. Eh. Pro-life is just a label. Most Pro-lifers believe that abortion should be legal, just with restrictions. So it becomes like 80%+ of the population that think it should be legal. Not many people are as extreme as superfan. Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. Bullshit. I call fucking bullshit. You should be encouraging government programs of all possible kinds if you believe that abortion is murder.
agreed, if it was that important you should be dropping condoms on cities in the millions, and fighting for federal funding for things that provide sex education and contraception, like say Planned Parenthood, I don't buy it
|
On October 23 2012 07:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:50 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:
[quote]
wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. Romney is a right winger. I can scarcely express my disbelief that you think he's a liberal. The guy believe that Obama's election is the beginning of "a reign of 1000 years of darkness" (ROFL): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=8#152and that we live in the "golden age of American empire" http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#117or that modern Europe is "run by women", whatever it means http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#119So, you know.... everything is possible :/
Someone can't take a joke.
"Thousand Years of Darkness" was a Chuck Norris reference.
American Empire is from Ghost in the Shell.
Europe being run by women is something an anarcho-socialist on another forum I go to spouts on about. He also posted this picture in the politics forum, an accurate representation of modern Europe:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cSQyY.png)
|
On October 23 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the death penalty to abortion is juvenile. The two are easily distinguishable.
No, not when the argument against abortion is sanctity of life. Then the two issues become part of the same discussion.
|
People are going to fuck, period. Your options are:
-Unwanted pregnancies
-Abortions
-Sex education and Contraceptives
Take your pick.
|
On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening?
federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place.
govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get.
|
On October 23 2012 08:38 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 07:50 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. Romney is a right winger. I can scarcely express my disbelief that you think he's a liberal. The guy believe that Obama's election is the beginning of "a reign of 1000 years of darkness" (ROFL): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=8#152and that we live in the "golden age of American empire" http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#117or that modern Europe is "run by women", whatever it means http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#119So, you know.... everything is possible :/ Someone can't take a joke. "Thousand Years of Darkness" was a Chuck Norris reference. American Empire is from Ghost in the Shell. Europe being run by women is something an anarcho-socialist on another forum I go to spouts on about. He also posted this picture in the politics forum, an accurate representation of modern Europe:
Have you even been to Europe?
|
United States4130 Posts
On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get.
You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right?
|
On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get.
It doesn't go to fund abortions. 3% of their services are performing abortions. The rest goes to std testing, contraceptive distribution, and cancer screenings.
In an ideal world nobody would have sex except to make babies in marriage? I can't tell if your against contraceptives or not.
|
On October 23 2012 08:38 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 07:50 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. Romney is a right winger. I can scarcely express my disbelief that you think he's a liberal. The guy believe that Obama's election is the beginning of "a reign of 1000 years of darkness" (ROFL): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=8#152and that we live in the "golden age of American empire" http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#117or that modern Europe is "run by women", whatever it means http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#119So, you know.... everything is possible :/ Someone can't take a joke. "Thousand Years of Darkness" was a Chuck Norris reference. American Empire is from Ghost in the Shell. Europe being run by women is something an anarcho-socialist on another forum I go to spouts on about. He also posted this picture in the politics forum, an accurate representation of modern Europe:
Idk Swazi I took those comments at face value, I knew they were "humorous" but I took it that you actually are anti obama, view Europe as somewhat emasculated etc.
|
On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right?
what's your point?
On October 23 2012 08:41 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. It doesn't go to fund abortions. 3% of their services are performing abortions. The rest goes to std testing, contraceptive distribution, and cancer screenings. In an ideal world nobody would have sex except to make babies in marriage? I can't tell if your against contraceptives or not.
I specifically said that federal funding doesn't go to abortions...
I didn't say anything about sex, either in marriage or not. and who is against contraception? just because I don't want the feds providing it doesn't mean I don't want it existing...
|
On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get.
Federal overreach is allowing women to make decisions?
|
United States4130 Posts
On October 23 2012 08:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? what's your point?
I'm not sure.
But either way, I'm killing time until King Charlie tells me more about the evils of sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
