And the South shall rise again

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
you fucking idiot.

the bill is not as you describe. it does not "appropriate funds for that". it keeps funds from being appropriated to ANY institution whatsoever that might even suggest that homosexuality can be an acceptable lifestyle.

so a school that takes any other stance other than "homosexuality can not even be suggested to be an acceptable lifestyle" would have funding pulled.

any hospital that takes a stance other than "do not even suggest that homosexuality can be an acceptable lifestyle!!!" would have its funding pulled.

and you defend that by trying to play dumb as to what the purpose of the bill actually is. nice.

but i guess when you play dumb like that, it takes away from the real point: that rawn pawl, supposed "libertarian" clearly sees people in groups and discriminates against some groups over others, in violation of the 14th amendment.

simply retarded. both of you.

I would have to look at the bill, not to hip on 80's legislation. If the intention of the bill is as you said, then I don't support it and obviously Ron Paul made a judgement error out of the realm of libertarian philosophy. The KKK used to run the democratic party and Barrack Obama kills children. I clearly win. bongsmilie
 

echelon1k1

New Member
That's right, you're a little boy who cries, "Mommy, that man's a racist!"
Because his mommy wasn't the right colour for him and her only qualification for motherhood was a filthy womb that happened to catch the sperm of a passing trucker... Who wasn't black either... Fuck he must be pissed....
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Because his mommy wasn't the right colour for him and her only qualification for motherhood was a filthy womb that happened to catch the sperm of a passing trucker... Who wasn't black either... Fuck he must be pissed....
you got nothing, ophelia.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Can I get a mulligan?
of course.

my favorite approach to debate pro lifers is to concede the view to them and proceed on details.

who do we punish? the woman? the docotr? both? what is the punishment? how do we make sure pregnant women don't "accidentally" fall down rickety staircases or uneven sidewalks? ankle bracelets?

how do we assure no abortions are had? monthly, government issued, mandatory pregnancy tests?

do we put women who miscarry on trial?

exceptions for rape? no way. all life is precious, no matter how conceived.

ya see, the pro life argument kills itself once you go about contemplating those little details.

so by all means, mulligan.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Can I get a mulligan?
why are you arguing with bucky?

bucky believes in reductio ad retardum as the only valid form of debate.

instead of passing laws proihibiting a thing and letting the system operate as intended, ie. a doctor who performs abortions later than permitted would be charged if his activity comes under official scrutiny, bucky insists that every pregnancy be monitored by a federal beuracrat daily to ensure that no abortive activity is taking place, with daily home visits, and frequent pelvic exams to ensure that no coathangers or vacuum cleaner hoses have come anywhere near that pussy.

his next step will be to insist that a federal monitor be asigned to every vagina the moment it successfully evades attempts to abort it, and every moment from Pampers to Grampers that pussy should be under constant direct surveillance to ensure that every drop of semen deposited within results in a full term baby, to be immediately removed to a federal indoctrination creche for "education".

but when he opposes a law's prohibition, then refusing to enforce that law is the prerogative of every elected official with a D behind their names, like for example, illegal immigration.

mentioning illegal immigration is racist of course. and you're racist for reading this.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
why are you arguing with bucky?

bucky believes in reductio ad retardum as the only valid form of debate.

instead of passing laws proihibiting a thing and letting the system operate as intended, ie. a doctor who performs abortions later than permitted would be charged if his activity comes under official scrutiny, bucky insists that every pregnancy be monitored by a federal beuracrat daily to ensure that no abortive activity is taking place, with daily home visits, and frequent pelvic exams to ensure that no coathangers or vacuum cleaner hoses have come anywhere near that pussy.

his next step will be to insist that a federal monitor be asigned to every vagina the moment it successfully evades attempts to abort it, and every moment from Pampers to Grampers that pussy should be under constant direct surveillance to ensure that every drop of semen deposited within results in a full term baby, to be immediately removed to a federal indoctrination creche for "education".

but when he opposes a law's prohibition, then refusing to enforce that law is the prerogative of every elected official with a D behind their names, like for example, illegal immigration.

mentioning illegal immigration is racist of course. and you're racist for reading this.
mentioning illegal immigration is not racist, but bemoaning how your european blood will be tainted with african blood or polynesian blood is.

as is your ridiculous conspiracy theory about multiculturalism leading to something along the lines of a hitler youth, with singular mindset and all.

just take your retard ball and go home.
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
First of all, you can't abort a baby. You abort an embryo. Big difference.

Are you suggesting that we only have sex in order to create a baby? Thats so rediculous its not even funny. Its just absurd. Everytime you had sex, you were procreating? How many fucking kids do you have? Do you think birth control is wrong because youre supposed to have a baby every time you have sex? Let's be real.
Fetuses turn into babies if you don't murder them and there aren't other problems. Yes sex is a function for creating babies, if you fuck women and ejaculate in their vaginas a baby comes out of their vagina nine months later if everything goes well, this is the function and purpose of the reproductive system...to reproduce.
you are absurd to imply that sucking fetuses out of women is not murder....and or is not wrong or immoral.
It is not illegal but the argument could be made that it should be, and also that it shouldn't be. But it is murder just not defined as such because of "law"
It could be argued that in a moral society people wouldn't want to kill their offspring and no one would want to receive an abortion so the problem would solve itself without laws being passed or enforced
It could also be argued that if abortion were illegal women would still kill their children before birth with the help of illegal doctors or a coat hanger.
Killing others is not ok, weather it is legal or illegal
The Nazi death camps were legal under the Nuremberg laws.
 

echelon1k1

New Member
Fetuses turn into babies if you don't murder them and there aren't other problems. Yes sex is a function for creating babies, if you fuck women and ejaculate in their vaginas a baby comes out of their vagina nine months later if everything goes well, this is the function and purpose of the reproductive system...to reproduce.
you are absurd to imply that sucking fetuses out of women is not murder....and or is not wrong or immoral.
It is not illegal but the argument could be made that it should be, and also that it shouldn't be. But it is murder just not defined as such because of "law"
It could be argued that in a moral society people wouldn't want to kill their offspring and no one would want to receive an abortion so the problem would solve itself without laws being passed or enforced
It could also be argued that if abortion were illegal women would still kill their children before birth with the help of illegal doctors or a coat hanger.
Killing others is not ok, weather it is legal or illegal
The Nazi death camps were legal under the Nuremberg laws.
At the core of it - personal responsibility, you don't want or cannot afford children, then common sense would dictate "no glove, no love"... If the dommy breaks there's always the morning after pill - it doesn't need to get to an abortion...
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Chesus, just wondering...what exactly is wrong with banning abortions after 12 weeks?

Is 3 months not enough time to "take care of it" if that should be the conclusion you need/seek?

I'd consider pro-choice to mean you've to make a choice within reasonable time constraints, why do it after the point the child has exponentially higher chance of surviving alone outside the womb?

After 12 weeks the foetus is complete and simply needs to grow larger.

Just IMO.
Twelve weeks counted how? The standard pregnancy calculator puts conception at week three. That means you've been actually pregnant only two months when the strict count is observed. cn
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
At the core of it - personal responsibility, you don't want or cannot afford children, then common sense would dictate "no glove, no love"... If the dommy breaks there's always the morning after pill - it doesn't need to get to an abortion...
says the man with a barren vagina.

bet you wouldn't have the same opinion if your crescent were fertile.
 

echelon1k1

New Member
says the man with a barren vagina.

bet you wouldn't have the same opinion if your crescent were fertile.
Sorry we don't all go around claiming to be black, while calling everyone racist ... Keep talking wacko bucko you're down to vagina insults so your jimmies are obviously rustled... all those years of the black man oppressing you & your white ancestors prevents you from having even one thought process that's not tainted with your usual libtardness...
 
Top