U.S Election 2016

Post Reply New Topic

Probably because you don't think it's important enough to pay attention. Romney said flat-out that he'd support a constitutional amendment that defined a zygote as a person, and Ryan co-sponsored a bill with Akin (of "legitimate rape" fame) that would have re-defined rape to exclude non-forcible rapes, for example statutory rapes or those involving a drugged victim.

What do you call a voter who sees the choices before them as 'evil' and 'lesser evil,' and makes a decision other than you do? Obviously, you call them "sheep," and 'too stupid to agree with me,' as you have already demonstrated. I call them 'people with other priorities.'


1)control of one's own physical body is a hell of a lot more important than control over any amount of property.
2)taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilization. Don't like it? Move to Somalia. No taxes there.


A woman IS held responsible for her *child.* A zef is not a child.
Know what a man cannot be forced to do? He cannot, even if he is on death row, be forced to donate so much as a drop of his blood to save the life of said child, even if that child will die without it.

First of all, pregnancy and childbirth are a little more significant than an 'inconvenience.' A first-trimester abortion is an order of magnitude (10X, if you don't know what that means) less likely to KILL a woman than is giving birth. Another way to frame that: she's ten times more likely to die if she goes through with the pregnancy. Then there are all of the permanent body changes: stretch marks, weight gain, back and knee problems, possible diabetes, etc. Then there are all of the 'inconveniences' that end with birth, but last for months in the interim: nausea, vomiting, having to pee every 10 minutes, being limited to one sleeping position, etc.

Then there's the fact that she's something like 3x as likely to be living in poverty, on the government dole, 3 years down the road if she *doesn't* get an abortion.

Wrt. car crashes: you said that 'women should face the consequences for having had sex,' as though pregnancy were a punishment for being slu*ty, slu*ty girls, and that taking a risk automatically means that you have to accept the negative outcome with no help and no mitigating medical care if you end up on the wrong side of the statistics from that risk.

We all take risks all of the time. Sometimes, we end up needing medical help from those risks. Thankfully, we have modern medicine to mitigate the misfortunes we have, despite the risks that we take.

Here's another metaphor, that you might like better: If someone has sex and gets an STD, should we 'leave him with the consequences of his slu*ty behavior' and withhold antibiotics? Or should we provide him with the medical treatment that he needs to get better?

I paid plenty of attention, besides Rick Santorum it wasn't an issue that anybody spent a particular amount of time on and the only reason Rick Santorum was anything besides a blip on the radar this cycle is because of his media created "surge" in Iowa. I wonder what the motivation behind that was, hmmmm...

A voter that votes between evil and lesser evil? Somebody still voting for evil? I don't see how someone with no understanding of the complicated issues of the day anything other than ignorant at best. I suppose you could say an addict that spends their money feeding their addiction at the expense of their family has different "priorities". They're not all worthy of the same respect.

Property is an extension of one's self. I realize people don't like responding to my posts about Somalia but I at least hoped people would read them. I guess that tired old talking point is to hard to give up tho.

A man cannot force a woman to have a child she does not want and a man cannot force a woman to abort one that she does, the man is always responsible to provide for that child until it is 18 years. A man has no choice after conception nut his role does not end there.

Your falling back on the health of mother argument which I am not contesting if it a serious enough risk. The rest of that is a minor inconvenience when we're talking about justifying murder.

Your analogy still seems a little off. Maybe a better comparison would a drunk driver is a responsible for any lives they may cost. You are responsible for your own actions when taking a life, you should be responsible when you create one as well. I don't see it as unreasonable to ask someone not to have unprotected sex if they cannot accept the possible consequences of doing so, there so many alternatives to avoiding pregnancy before abortion.

Have I said anything about Santorum? No. I've talked about Romney and Ryan, and I added Akin because of Ryan's legislative cooperation with him. If Romney had been elected, he would have had a chance to appoint a SCOTUS judge and he said that he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Not 'the media.' Not Obama. Romney. Romney said that. On video. He also said that he'd support a personhood-at-fertilization amendment to the constitution, and that he'd love to defund Planned Parenthood: again, all of this on video.

So now, voters who disagree with you are not only stupid, deluded sheep being led around by "the media," they're selfish drug addicts?!

Do you not understand that vilifying the other side is not a way to make more people like your side?

No, property is not an extension of your body. If I had to choose between losing my car and, say, losing a toe or two, I'd give up the car. I'd feel bad, but I'd be glad that I still had my body intact.

What can a man do? He can get an easily-reversible vasectomy as an outpatient procedure in most doctor's offices. He can skip town. He could, up until recently, claim that the kid wasn't his (thanks to genetic testing, no longer an option). He can have biological children without a single twinge of pain or physical discomfort.
What can a woman do? She can use hormonal birth control that makes her prone to pulmonary embolism and strokes. She can use barrier birth control that is error-prone. She can get a medical or surgical abortion, both of which cause pain; she can deliver a child, which, even assuming that all goes well, causes vastly more pain.

Even if one accepts that a zef is a person, which I do not, killing it is self-defense, not murder. If someone -even someone who needed it to save their life - tried to take any of your organs without your permission -even organs that you could live without - even something that you would grow back, like blood or bone marrow - you would be justified in killing them to prevent it.
But a zef is neither a child nor a person, so it's not even justifiable homicide.

Of course I agree that the best option is to use birth control, and to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Can I take it, then, that you're not one of those pro-lifers who want to ban comprehensive sex-ed and defund planned parenthood?
And, say someone does use birth control, and it fails: the driver was wearing a seatbelt, but still needs medical care. The guy used a condom, and still ended up with crabs. Should we deny them medical treatment?

Another form of metaphor: A man drives home (has sex) with his toddler in the back seat, in a properly installed chair (birth control). He gets into a car accident on the way home (birth control fails); his toddler, despite the protection, suffers from a ruptured spleen and/ or a ruptured liver (life on the line). The father has the only available matching blood, and is a tissue-type match as well (no transferability). His child's life depends on him. Should the state be able to legally compel him to donate blood, up to the edge of death if necessary? Should the state be able to compel him to donate a chunk of his own liver, which he will /probably/ survive?

It seems like Rand Paul is moving up in the ranks.

Yeah, as a liberty-minded individual, Rand Paul would be great as president. He knows how to play the media and establishment GOP as well, which was the biggest detriment to his father.

Rand will be giving to the Tea Party response to the state of the union following Marco Rubio's "official" Republican response. Should be an interesting watch.

Rand does play the Fox News crowd very well, you need to throw out red meat and quell the eternal paranoia the Republican base that has been brainwashed by neoconservatives for years.

Moralizing hypocrites want nothing to do with the raising of unwanted newborns.

Do not project onto me and forgive me for not believing that being unwanted should warrant a death sentence. Do you believe extend this belief beyond unborn children?

^this brings up Vexcalibur's 'shrodinger's abortion' argument.

Conflation. Most people who support abortion recognise that a foetus is technically alive, but don't think it is a life to be valued (a person). I personally view a foetus as roughly equivalent to a bacterium- you should feel no worse about getting an abortion than about taking anti-biotics, or using hand cream, or having an immune system. Or they skin cells you shred every day, or the cheek cells that die every time you swallow.

What makes something a "human life"?

Yeah, but the bacterium doesn't develope into a human being.
That is the difference.

Who decides what human lives are valued?

Well he was the Grand Wizzard of the KKK. I don't think its all that absurd to think he might just have some racist views.

You're replying to something I said on 11/24.
I'm sure you can find all kinds of more recent horrible Raptor-isms to find fault with.

There is no real point in watching the SOTU, nothing of value gets said. Most people are saying Rubio didn't do particularly well in his response, was real awkward reaching for a drink mid-speech. Bias but I thought Rand did pretty well especially compared to Rubio.