UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
want a hateful, homophobic tirade?
https://www.rollitup.org/groups/politics-2-1-d3512-rational-view.html
check your own group.
USCB Radical feminist porn professor goes nuts
- Thread starter greentrip
- Start date
https://www.rollitup.org/groups/politics-2-1-d3512-rational-view.html
check your own group.
JohnnySocko
Active Member
I won't argue some Republicans views on women s reproductive rights are outright medieval ....
But in so far as pro-choice'rs being more compromising about reducing abortion; after hearing some of the Femi-Nazis speeches, hell some of them would pass out do it at home abortion kits replete with coat hangers and a garbage bag...
I've already agreed Pro-life is a slippery slope, but Dude this shit is damn messy "choice", can't you at least acknowledge that?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
actually it has been the norm since the classical period.
The Hippocratic Oath ~450 BC
I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher's sons, and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life.
and a similar stricture is found in the medical oaths of ancient china, ancient persia, ancient israel, ancient japan, ancient india, etc etc etc
wherever the practice of medicine advanced to the point where abortifacients and abortive surgery were possible, it was rejected as unethical, and a violation of a physician's duty.
funny how every society that advanced to any degree of sophistication found this practice to be abhorrent, except "progressives" who view it as a sacrament.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
if you think feminists would use a coat hanger as anything other than a symbol of mockery against regressive righties who love freedom and liberty and hate choice and liberty, then you are sadly mistaken yet again.
there is nothing messy about trusting women with the freedom to control their own bodies. it does get messy when supposed freedom loving libertarian rail against this simple concept.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You use the term "we" as if there was a gerbil in your pocket. I answered you. You didn't like, understand or rebut my answer. You can't rebut it, because you would then expose your own hypocrisy...again.
I said those that were aggressed against were harmed. We agree there. I said those that were not aggressed against were not. We don't agree there. You think for a person to refuse to associate with another that it causes the other harm. You lump two circumstances together. At least you didn't call me a racist this time....rapist.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Apparently you can tell a store from a uterus. You get a C+ in anatomy. Now if you could only tell a Wendy's floor from a toilet.
Open to the public? Does that mean that the owner somehow has voluntarily relinquished control or was that control taken from them? Hmmm....sounds like you are advocating an exception to the rules of ownership by granting people other than the owners elements of control, whether the rightful owner agrees or not That means you believe in initiating force. Which makes you a believer that thru violence you can achieve peace, which is obviously impossible.
Indifference is not aggression. Nor does it lessen another persons right to own themself or their property. Aggression is aggression. Logic has trapped you. Now go clean the floor and apologize.
Doer
Well-Known Member
1) That is not a Buddhist swastika. It is the Falun. The Chinese word for the symbol is wan, and in Sanskrit, it is known as srivatsa.Just like this is racist!
Crazy people are allowed hate?
2) To turn it backward is the spirit gate to Nazi Necromancy.
[h=1][/h]
The Falun Emblem The Falun emblem is the official symbol of Falun Dafa. Falun translates literally to "law wheel." While it is most often shown as seen here, you may also see it reproduced with different background colors.
The Falun Itself The Falun itself is high-energy material that has intelligence. It rotates according to the laws of the universe. The Falun distinguishes Falun Dafa from other schools of cultivation.
Falun Dafa is Different Other types of cultivation rely on the development of an energy cluster in the lower abdomen (dantian) formed through meditation or other practices. The energy exists unseen in another dimension. While meditating (or practicing), this cultivation energy develops. When meditation ends, so too does the development of cultivation energy. Only with more practice does one develop more cultivation energy.
JohnnySocko
Active Member
...this is a totally unconvincing debate...
banter from neither side will convince the other as neither can cross any of these sticky thresholds:
1) How can a state or government justify forcing a person to carry a fetus it doesn't want? its one thing to ban a substance, its an entirely different issue forcing biological processes to term or not...
2) The pro-choice crowd always seems to skim over male reproductive rights at "Trojan" level even though both parties are aware of the risk pre-conception
3) The pro choice crowd seems to want to include abortions as a viable family choice paid for by the entire tax paying population (you can't claim liability if males can prevent pregnancy, yet justify that unrelated parties pay for the post pregnancy corrective measures, this is illogical and unfair)
I consider myself a logically thinking person and I've yet to hear anything remotely offered as a sound argument countering any of the above....
banter from neither side will convince the other as neither can cross any of these sticky thresholds:
1) How can a state or government justify forcing a person to carry a fetus it doesn't want? its one thing to ban a substance, its an entirely different issue forcing biological processes to term or not...
2) The pro-choice crowd always seems to skim over male reproductive rights at "Trojan" level even though both parties are aware of the risk pre-conception
3) The pro choice crowd seems to want to include abortions as a viable family choice paid for by the entire tax paying population (you can't claim liability if males can prevent pregnancy, yet justify that unrelated parties pay for the post pregnancy corrective measures, this is illogical and unfair)
I consider myself a logically thinking person and I've yet to hear anything remotely offered as a sound argument countering any of the above....
JohnnySocko
Active Member
just sayin I've never seen anyone's opinion actually change on this topic... I doubt I will, I'm only pro choice because the alternative of government controlling our biological choices is more distasteful that the thought of a aborted fetus (which IMO is a horrific visual)
Still totally against the state paying for it....
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
1) I agree, the state can't justify it
2) It's not the males body. I think 1) comes into play in this question, how can a man, just like the state, justify forcing a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want to term?
3) I disagree, abortion is a last resort, not a form of birth control. I'm all for male birth control
Doer
Well-Known Member
Western religion is all about forcing women, in various ways, but certainly making it a sin to abort. And long before coat hangers (and where there are no coat hangers, alive an well in this world) are abortive herbal techniques that have been hidden and otherwise culled, by the Church.
Women throughout history have know about tried and safe methods.
But, on the subject of forcing women to birth warriors.....that is the history of world. It is just the definition of forcing, that changes. Now it is Double-think of Conservatism and Religions from the Dark Ages.
Japan is in trouble. It is not a recoverable trouble. Beyond here, be dragons. Japan has no idea what to do. There are fewer and fewer children being born. Women are liberated into the work force. And it his a very misogynistic society. So, Japanese women make and easy choice, but all at once, unfortunately. They would rather be out there competing, than at home with one jerk.
So, this society is in trouble and the inevitable swing back to coherced conception will happen. But, the dragons are, we just don't know the form that will take.
So, it a balance and only the mentally lazy will refuse to think about the un-intended consequences. Or did we intend this for Japan, as a long term hobbling input? Nah! We are only bubbling along, just like them.
i happened to notice 3 posts in greentrip brings dems into the conversation (though none present)..why is it the group, politics 2.0, hates democratic americans who can't even comment (you must be a member and INVITED to join) to defend themselves?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Free Speech Zone when disagreeing with Republicans Conservatives and Libertarians:
Your Free Speech Zone when disagreeing with leftists progressives and liberals:
WTF is a godamned "Free Speech Zone"?
I love democrats to bad we dont have one in the white house.i happened to notice 3 posts in greentrip brings dems into the conversation (though none present)..why is it the group, politics 2.0, hates democratic americans who can't even comment (you must be a member and INVITED to join) to defend themselves?
The party was highjacked a while ago by progressive/communists haven't you heard
Wow where have you been. Obama has changed about a zillion times the last 10 years.
Unless of course you think he was just lying to manipulate and deceive voters.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
You bore me