Just the man for the job: http://politi.co/N9DjEd Which will come first: Obama's college transcript, Romney's tax returns or Harry Reid's tax returns.
Sorry to interrupt Bandwagoner's pissing match and Giddyup's off-topic partisan rhetoric: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
So being a meat-eater is more morally reprehensible than supporting abortion? And don't give us the pro-Choice crap. The entire purpose of having Choice is to be able to say YES. The NOs don't need Choice.
Are you saying that is something I said? The only stat I posted was something about repeat abortions leveling off at 47% circa 2006 according to a Guttmacher study. I did call them casual-- meaning there were no life and death health issues... except for the abortion, of course!
It's about the same level, really. It's actually the one good thing about having discussions with "pro-lifers". Usually, I feel like kind of a douche for running around and telling people their habits kill lives (I don't actually, because I'm more of a live and let live person, and not being a total vegan, there are still some stones in my house), but pro-lifers have already rode that boat all the way down, so it's like eh. If people want to throw moral judgements at others, I'm game. So yeah, if you claim to be pro-life, I don't see one good ******* reason why you're eating meat. It seems kinda...irresponsible.
HA-HA. I'm off topic and all of your posts until now have been responses to the abortion discussion in this thread. Too rich.
Damn, I thought you were amnestied along with your boy. How is anything I said patriarchal. I know lots of women who will chime in just as strongly as I do.
You think a woman's right to autonomy over her own body is predicated on her desire to have abortions.
I'm interested in protecting the interests of the unborn. I recognize the issue over the woman's body but it comes in a very distant second and I have no interest in it otherwise. Now how patriarchal is that?
Huh. I'll give you this, I chuckled. But yeah, if people were consistently pro-life, they'd seek to maximize life in all instances. And that involves, to a certain degree, getting away from the industrial food system. We're all imperfect beings, and people are hella sensitive to what they eat. I'm not going to pretend I'm a saint because I try and largely succeed in not consuming animal products; I'm not anywhere close. I do a lot of destructive s**t. And you won't become a saint either. But, you'll help, at least indirectly, save lives. You'll make a difference. And for someone who is as engaged as you are in trying to do this, I think this another avenue for you to pursue. And that, ladies and gentlemen is how (at least one) modern liberal thinks. All with a bit of (mostly) well-intentioned sarcasm. Add a dash of cynicism, a counter-balance of relative optimism, and an overriding belief that helping your fellow man or animal is right.
You think a woman's choice is only valid if she agrees with you. That's why you keep trotting out the line about all the anti-choice women you know.
Hello there, my reading comprehension challenged friend. My first post was on page 16 and concerned a much greater issue than strictly abortion (which I did not directly address in any of my posts in this thread). The issue of property rights and the fact that our bodies are the only real piece of property we will undeniably be born with and with which we will die. To advocate for government regulation of this divinely granted piece of property seems to contradict the typical rhetoric involving property rights and government deregulation. It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. Other posts of mine referred to our antiquated and misguided health care system and how it could be improved. Your post that I have just quoted pretty much proves my point. You just want to spew, not discuss. If you were interested in discussion I would assume that you would at least read the posts of those with whom you type. Spew away (unless you are Catholic - then the rules change).
No, my viewpoint on this revolves around the baby's life. As I admitted, any aborting woman's view on it is of secondary concern. I'm equally opposed to MEN who support abortion rights. :grin:
I'm not reading challenged. Your other posts were somewhat ancient in the timeline of our conversation. Your more recent posts were related to the topic that was supposedly a derailment. When I said "all your posts" I was mistakenly referring only to the ones on the most recent pages not from days ago. EDIT: You wrote "other posts of mine" when in fact you only had one other post and only two total. I figured you must have posted earlier when you had not... or I can't find them. Now you can go back to The Circle Jerk-- unless you're a Catholic, I suppose. Now isn't this fun?!?
Nobody ever thought about it this way before. I think we might have a winner. Here's a slogan: If you only have one choice, do you really need a "choice" at all?
Circle Jerk indeed. You said all of my posts in this thread were about abortion, when in fact none were and I did not even post until page 16. Show me. Where? Again, why have a conversation with someone who just spews from their buttocks without bothering to read. So far on page 18 alone you cover abortion, amnesty of Scola, Obama's college transcript, Harry's tax returns (never mind that he isn't running for president - you might as well release the last ten years of your tax returns for us to review). What is the topic again?
In post 315 you invoked "property rights" as an argument on behalf of Choice. In post 316 you posted about necessary social programs which came about, I thought, as a drill-down when I had listed a number of resources that were available for overwhelmed mothers. Neither of these is particularly on the topic of the OP.
