The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central JetStar = Mitt (for flip flopping, not voting for)

Please explain Obama signing the NDAA, even after he admitted it was wrong? Please explain Obama continuing Bush foreign policy. I forgot, Time is a far right echo chamber.

So is Seymour Hersh, right? FP Magazine . I am queuing the laff track right now, just FYI.

Teller of untruths, teller of untruths, your trousers are combusting!
While I would like to make it impossible to operate an abortion clinic that is not at all what we're discussing. Your argument that there is no justification for opposing abortion other than religious is predicated on the idea that life doesn't begin until a human is forcibly ejected from a birth canal. FYI the same people who espouse that belief are the ones who are currently suggesting that "really, a life doesn't begin until the child has cognitive reasoning abilities, so we should be able to abort children up to the age of 2." How's that for a slippery slope?

What I believe cannot be considering misogyny because it has bearing on the woman only tangentially. My belief that life begins at conception depends on the woman only in so far as females are the only sex that can become pregnant. In order for my views to be misogynist I would have to say "abortion is wrong because women aren't capable of making sound decisions" or something to that effect. About the closest to that you're ever going to get from me is, someone who chooses to have sex recreationaly and considers pregnancy a "burden to be saddled with" (in the words of B.O.) is incapable of making sound decisions about someone else's life.

Go take a shower and don't come back until you start acting like a civilized human being again.

You are aware of supreme court decision, you are aware of freedoms granted to women under constitution as interpreted by supreme court, yet you would like to make it technically impossible to exercise these freedom based on religious or moral grounds by superseding legal and legislative process.

Case closed. You no longer have a leg to stand on in any argument where you would cite personal freedoms.



Imaginary voice in the sky tells me you should eat only broccoli. I will ignore your rights and make sure that you could only ever find broccoli.

What you believe should never supersede other people's rights. Coincidentally, what you believe happens to be misogyny. Why is this misogyny, because you are trying to dictate how women should go living their lives.

lol

When I saw this piece, I can honestly say I thought of you.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-12-2012/civil-disservice

I was really surprised to find you in the anti-abortionist crowd, you always came across as strong personal freedoms and goverment staying out of people's business advocate.

Well I guess you chose to forget your "freedom, flag and constitution" stance and dust off your grandpa's bible when it concerns women's rights. You and Ron Paul.

ABORTION

Yes, we should aim to become as free as these paragons of open and democratic society, Russia, China, Syria...

Replace abortion with gun rights and your own argument says you have no right to talk about personal freedoms.


BTW being against abortion doesn't mean you are part of a religion. You can believe that when a woman is knocked up there is a baby in her belly and killing it is murder.

It doesn't give me the right to stop the woman to murder her child but I don't have to say I like it.


Liberals are the worst when it comes to personal freedoms cause it their way or the highway.

See thats the thing, I have always been pro-choice. Which is why I held your remarks in such disdain - because you simply do not know what you are talking about. Imagine if someone came up to you, and started calling you names and tossing insults and loaded rhetoric at you for being pro-gun.

http://oracle.the-kgb.com/ubbthreads.php...=true#Post90484 Some recent comments by me, shortly before you started popping in around here that included references to my thoughts on the role of federal govt, including abortion. Unfortunately it seems that my great debates with Vydor and others on the issue have been archived, but ask Jet - he used to pop into those debates.

I really do not understand how someone could manage to twist not caring about, or even supporting, a bill that was about how federal tax dollars are spent regarding abortion - into some sort of religious anti-abortion stance.

Its not about abortion. Its about spending. There are many reasons I am opposed to using federal funds for abortions, except in cases noted by that particular bill referenced earlier. Not the least of which is that approx half of the US thinks abortion is morally wrong, and I think that the wishes of so many taxpayers should be respected.

This issue is not about that the govt is preventing, prohibiting, or regulating - its about not forcing people to pay for something. There is an immense philosophical gap between the two, whether you choose to recognize that or not.