The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

The reasons for the recent mass shootings Options
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:07:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,773
Neurons: 50,270
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
The topic of abortion was introduced into this thread, so a few last comments:

People who have a problem with abortion assume incorrectly that death is the worst possible thing to happen to anyone and that human life is sacred. Both are just arrogant human ideology made to serve specific purposes, which are mostly good, in order to protect individuals.

They also think arrogantly that their opinion, usually religious or male desire for uterus control, should be able to supersede the rights of others and control their lives when they do not know the circumstances. They want a general law of one size fits all - when it doesn't.

It is clear in all US Supreme Court rulings since 1973 that the State (governments) should stay out of the bedroom. It is up to the courts, not legislatures. Those lawmakers who make laws against the rights of women do not believe in obeying the laws of the land. It is a violation the 13th Amendment to make a woman carry and bear children. The legislature also has no business deciding when life begins.

According to Supreme Court rulings the decision should be left to the individuals involved in the case. They have brains and consciences and it should be their decision. And she is the one who has to live with herself if she violates her own values. Any feelings she has are not collective to society.

Roe v Wade was based on a woman's right to privacy. Several cases have come up since 1973. In 2016 in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, according to the Supreme Court, the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to abortion belongs with the courts and not the legislatures so that forms of state restrictions on the way abortion clinics can function were negated.

"When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant."

The main argument that some critics of Roe v Wade used is that that particular privacy is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, so I must assume then that all situations of privacy are thus spelled out in length in the Constitution?


Also it is clear that when life begins is not an issue for the State. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 159


Edited: (I just skimmed over the most recent posts - accusing the Democrats of packing the Supreme Court when that is exactly what the Republicans just did with Kavanaugh etc. plus judges over all the land is rich indeed. Besides, I thought the judges were supposed to be impartial and vote according to law. Silly me when it comes to the US, apparently. I couldn't even tell you who is on Canada's Supreme Court nor how they vote. They just do their job.)

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:46:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
Lotje1000 wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:
No, I haven't taken any pages out of Trump's book. All thoughts and opinions are my own.

- Democrats hate America, the Constitution etc (full list here)
- Hope supports illegal immigration
- Far more people die of car accidents than they do gun violence
- Women who want to kill their own kids before or at birth are hypocrites for having empathy for kids in cages
- Women who want to have an abortion essentially want to kill their child when it has become inconvenient
(I read FounDit's one article about abortion at birth, I also read the act it refers to and it says "24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health." - so essentially, not at birth unless the mother is going to die or if the fetus isn't viable anyway. So hardly because it's inconvenient.)
- Having empathy for kids in cages means you want the US to let in any immigrant, illegal or otherwise
- Donald Trump is a good president
- All of us with different opinions to FounDit's are Leftists
- Hope and I are clairvoyant


I'd like to add to the list:
- Supreme Court has made foolish decisions
- The Democrats hope to be able to interpret the Constitution as they wish (and, presumably, the Republicans have the True Interpretation)
- Trump and his supporters have saved the republic.
- The socialists are assaulting the republic.

So far, though, not a single shred of evidence.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention, or choose not to see. Your mental scotoma is not my problem to solve.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:52:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:
I am very much aware of how the Constitution can be amended. I am also aware that packing the Supreme Court was a goal of the Democrats who hoped to be able to interpret the document as they wished, rather than as what it says, as John Roberts did with Obamacare; so it is not a red herring.


Hmmm. Look at the record before you make any claims about 'packing' by Democrats.

Since 1945, three nominations by Republican presidents, Clement Haynsworth, G. Harrold Carswell and
Robert Bork, have been rejected by the Senate. In each case, there were very very sound reasons, and in each case some Democrats voted in favour of the nomination and some Republicans voted against. The two Republican presidents' later nominations were accepted by the Senators, in each case with no Democrats voting against.

When a Supreme Court vacancy arose 2016, Senate Republicans issued a statement saying they would not consider any nomination by President Obama (a Democrat). The nomination should be left to the next President of the United States. This despite there being neither constitutional support nor established tradition that a president could not fill a Supreme Court vacancy in his final year in office. When Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Republican Senators refused to consider the nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination. The Republican senators appear not to have read the constitution, which states in Article 2, that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court. Refusing to consider a nomination is hardly giving advice.
And none of this invalidates the stated desire of the Democrats to pack the court with Justices they favored.

This Republican decision resulted in a 422-day vacancy in the Supreme court, a record. No nomination was considered until a Republican president was in office, when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed.

So? Democrats have done exactly the same thing, as was often reported at the time.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:56:20 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,171
Neurons: 6,367
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:

So? Democrats have done exactly the same thing, as was often reported at the time.

Exactly which 'thing' are you referring to?
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:33:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:

We, President Trump and his supporters, saved the Republic, for now.


Whistle


True enough. The Davos crowd has been thwarted for a time, though they will no doubt continue their efforts to effect a global economy.

It appears that this was the true purpose of the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), the permitting of China to join the World Trade Organization (WTO), bringing it more closely in-line with the stronger Asian economies, and the formation of the European Union (EU). The next step would likely be the joining of all of these into a common economic pact, thus creating an economic system that would encompass almost two thirds of the planet.

But the U.S. would be the powerhouse in such a grouping, so that couldn't be permitted. It had to be reduced in power and influence, ergo, wealth was drained from it via the poorly constructed trade agreements outlined above. This was the part of the "fundamental transformation" Obama spoke of. The other part was the increased influence of Socialism via the Fifth Column Media, Fellow Travelers in Universities and education, and Useful Idiots scattered throughout society.

It's very telling that sixty years ago, there could never have been a candidate running for President who would openly declare themselves as a Socialist. Nor would a person working for the President openly declare themselves as a Communist, as Van Jones did in the Obama Administration. They have been very successful at embedding themselves into our society, like ticks on a dog, feeding off its health.

Many Americans sensed something was drastically wrong with the direction the country was heading, even if they couldn't articulate it. Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate, and couldn't get elected dog-catcher in a one-person race, so when Trump was elected, he had to be destroyed by the Socialists one way or another, even if it meant Obama weaponizing the intelligence sectors of the government (more comes out everyday on the corruption that was endemic there. It's about to get ver-r-r-r-y interesting).

Many British people felt the same way about what was happening to their country with the EU, and voted for Brexit. Theresa botched that so now Boris has been given a chance. It remains to be seen if he, and the British people, are successful. I hope they are.

So the Davos crowd has been blocked, for now. Hopefully, the citizens of other countries will come to view the one-world global scheme as anathema also, and thwart its completion. Living under a one-world government, which would be proposed as necessary (U.N. rule, no doubt), and having the ability to dictate to everyone, is not something I would care to experience. It is, I suspect, the wet dream of every politician and attendee at Davos.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 2:16:12 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,171
Neurons: 6,367
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
A lot of words, FounDit, and STILL no evidence to support the many claims you have made.
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 4:40:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,171
Neurons: 6,367
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate, and couldn't get elected dog-catcher in a one-person race


Reality check:

2000 Senate election, New York:
Clinton(Democrat): 3,747,310 votes, 55.27%
Lazio (Republican): 2,915,730 votes, 43.01

Figures.

2006 Senate election, New York:

Clinton (Democrat): 3,008,428 votes, 67.0%
Spence (Republican): 1,392,189 votes,31.0%

Figures


That's two pretty convincing wins for a 'horrible candidate'.


2016: US Presidential election

Clinton (Democrat): 65,853,514 votes, 48.18%
Trump (Republican): 62,984,828 votes, 46.09%

Figures

OK, the electoral college system meant that Trump won, but Trump knows, you know, and all Americans know that nearly three million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. Some 'horrible candidate'!
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 10:31:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate, and couldn't get elected dog-catcher in a one-person race


OK, the electoral college system meant that Trump won, but Trump knows, you know, and all Americans know that nearly three million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. Some 'horrible candidate'!


*laughs* Yep, and the horrible candidate lost. I knew you would seize upon that, but that's ok, because I was simply expressing my opinion of her character and qualifications for the job.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:50:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,773
Neurons: 50,270
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
BobShilling wrote:
Who is to be blamed for the recent mass shootings in America?

According to Ohio state representative Candice Keller, writing on Facebook, it's “the breakdown of the traditional American family (thank you, transgender, homosexual marriage, and drag queen advocates); fatherlessness, a subject no one discusses or believes is relevant; the ignoring of violent video games; the relaxing of laws against criminals( open borders); the acceptance of recreational marijuana; failed school policies (hello, parents who defend misbehaving students): disrespect to law enforcement (thank you, Obama), hatred of our veterans (professional athletes who hate our flag and National Anthem), the Dem Congress many members of whom are openly anti-semitic; the culture that totally ignores the importance of God and the church (until they elect a President); state office-holders who have no interest whatsoever in learning about our Constitution, end the Second Amendment; and snowflakes who can’t accept a duly-elected President".

Couldn't have put it better myself. Get rid of all the queers, transgender perverts, immigrants, Obama-lovers, immigrants, veteran-haters, atheists, Democrats,people who want some form of control on guns, people who expect the police to enforce the law peacefully and legally, anybody I consider a snowflake, etc, etc, and there will be no more mass shootings. America will be truly great again.

It's wonderful to be reminded that people who choose to kneel during the national anthem to call attention to the issues of racial inequality and police brutality are haters of veterans and the national anthem, that people who don't wholeheartedly support the state of Israel are anti-semitic, that the second amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") obviously allows every red-blooded patriotic American to keep any form of people-killer he/she wishes and that queers are jst beyond the pale.

God Bless America and God Bless Candice Keller.


Original post is above.

I think this pretty much answers your question, Bob. It is as we said way back before FD managed to steer the thread in the direction he wanted.


Counties that Hosted a 2016 Trump Rally Saw 226% Increase in Hate Crime



"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
BobShilling
Posted: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:36:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,171
Neurons: 6,367
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Hope123 wrote:

It is as we said way back before FD managed to steer the thread in the direction he wanted.


... and failed to provide evidence for his claims.

It's very tedious to have to keep repeating this, but it needs to be made crystal clear that FD rarely provides any evidence to support the preposterous claims he makes.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:15:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,773
Neurons: 50,270
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:

We, President Trump and his supporters, saved the Republic, for now.


Whistle


True enough. The Davos crowd has been thwarted for a time, though they will no doubt continue their efforts to effect a global economy.

It appears that this was the true purpose of the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), the permitting of China to join the World Trade Organization (WTO), bringing it more closely in-line with the stronger Asian economies, and the formation of the European Union (EU). The next step would likely be the joining of all of these into a common economic pact, thus creating an economic system that would encompass almost two thirds of the planet.

But the U.S. would be the powerhouse in such a grouping, so that couldn't be permitted. It had to be reduced in power and influence, ergo, wealth was drained from it via the poorly constructed trade agreements outlined above. This was the part of the "fundamental transformation" Obama spoke of. The other part was the increased influence of Socialism via the Fifth Column Media, Fellow Travelers in Universities and education, and Useful Idiots scattered throughout society.

It's very telling that sixty years ago, there could never have been a candidate running for President who would openly declare themselves as a Socialist. Nor would a person working for the President openly declare themselves as a Communist, as Van Jones did in the Obama Administration. They have been very successful at embedding themselves into our society, like ticks on a dog, feeding off its health.

Many Americans sensed something was drastically wrong with the direction the country was heading, even if they couldn't articulate it. Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate, and couldn't get elected dog-catcher in a one-person race, so when Trump was elected, he had to be destroyed by the Socialists one way or another, even if it meant Obama weaponizing the intelligence sectors of the government (more comes out everyday on the corruption that was endemic there. It's about to get ver-r-r-r-y interesting).

Many British people felt the same way about what was happening to their country with the EU, and voted for Brexit. Theresa botched that so now Boris has been given a chance. It remains to be seen if he, and the British people, are successful. I hope they are.

So the Davos crowd has been blocked, for now. Hopefully, the citizens of other countries will come to view the one-world global scheme as anathema also, and thwart its completion. Living under a one-world government, which would be proposed as necessary (U.N. rule, no doubt), and having the ability to dictate to everyone, is not something I would care to experience. It is, I suspect, the wet dream of every politician and attendee at Davos.


You have completely lost it FD. Conspiracy theories and inaccuracies in spades.

Your president has also lost it by believing in what you just described - no doubt you are getting it eventually from him the "Conspiracionist" - in - Chief. We knew that about him before he was even on the ballot. He is out to destroy the world trade and while doing so is imploding America from within. Dow Jones stocks down over 800 points twice now including yesterday, farmers on socialistic payments that aren't enough are committing suicide and other sectors are hurting, US tourism has lost its spot in the world, Trump admitted the American people are paying more for everything because of his policies, the 1% are after another tax decrease, and with bond inversion the question being asked is not "if" but "how bad" the looming recession will be. I hope it hits before November 2020 if we have to have it. We don't want it to happen because you drag the rest of us with you.

Thinking the democracies/allies/trading partners ever want the US to lose power is ludicrous. In fact it is scary that China seems to be pulling ahead of the US. So put the blame for any loss of power where it belongs - on Trump and you as enabler.

The trade treaties you describe show co-operation between like countries, and are mostly mutually beneficial, with give and take on all sides.

Being a Protectionist this cooperation scares you - how did that policy work out in history for you or for the UK with Brexit going into free fall? They could have renegotiated any terms they didn't like where they felt the EU had too much control over them and not have thrown out the baby with the bath water. Many now realize they were lied to, there was foreign interference, and have regretted their vote to withdraw.


The problem is not governments or the Davos group - "The World Economic Forum claims to be impartial and that it is not tied to any political, partisan, or national interests." Quote is from the link you provided.

The problem is that the world is already controlled by the top 1% wealthy individuals and corporations and UNFETTERED capitalism is what created that in the US.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:10:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,773
Neurons: 50,270
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
This must be the same Van Jones who flirted with Communism for several years in the nineties, left it behind, and was smeared by Fox News and Republicans during the time when he was working on green initiatives (of course) in Obama's administration - because of his ideas when younger. That's like still calling me a Christian because I was till around age 40.

FounDit wrote: They have been very successful at embedding themselves into our society, like ticks on a dog, feeding off its health. Lol. Van Jones is now a Trump supporter.

"Anthony Kapel "Van" Jones (born September 20, 1968) is a CNN contributor, and an ardent supporter of President Donald J. Trump and conservative Republican Prison Reform initiatives." Wiki

Guess your history will never let you see that there is a big difference between democratic socialist policies of collective concern for others that Cortez is suggesting, and true socialism that doesn't work. Pure socialism does not work. Neither does pure unfettered capitalism without rules and regulations to stop rich corporations from focusing only on their bottom line. We do not like communism either, but are not so afraid of it that we have become obsessed about it.


"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, August 16, 2019 3:39:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,029
Neurons: 564,233
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:
No, I haven't taken any pages out of Trump's book. All thoughts and opinions are my own.

- Democrats hate America, the Constitution etc (full list here)
- Hope supports illegal immigration
- Far more people die of car accidents than they do gun violence
- Women who want to kill their own kids before or at birth are hypocrites for having empathy for kids in cages
- Women who want to have an abortion essentially want to kill their child when it has become inconvenient
(I read FounDit's one article about abortion at birth, I also read the act it refers to and it says "24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health." - so essentially, not at birth unless the mother is going to die or if the fetus isn't viable anyway. So hardly because it's inconvenient.)
- Having empathy for kids in cages means you want the US to let in any immigrant, illegal or otherwise
- Donald Trump is a good president
- All of us with different opinions to FounDit's are Leftists
- Hope and I are clairvoyant


I'd like to add to the list:
- Supreme Court has made foolish decisions
- The Democrats hope to be able to interpret the Constitution as they wish (and, presumably, the Republicans have the True Interpretation)
- Trump and his supporters have saved the republic.
- The socialists are assaulting the republic.

So far, though, not a single shred of evidence.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention, or choose not to see. Your mental scotoma is not my problem to solve.


Just for the record then, where is that evidence I'm not paying attention to? I checked all your posts in this thread and other than the one article that you wrongfully used to support your demonized opinion on abortion (and the one example BobShilling pointed out,) they're all evidence-less.

Evidence from other threads teaches me that you'll turn to more ad hominems, strawman arguments and deflection through some variation of "you people are so HILARIOUS, which really means I don't have to explain myself, somehow".
BobShilling
Posted: Friday, August 16, 2019 11:20:34 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,171
Neurons: 6,367
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Lotje1000 wrote:

Evidence from other threads teaches me that you'll turn to more ad hominems, strawman arguments and deflection through some variation of "you people are so HILARIOUS, which really means I don't have to explain myself, somehow".


Trying to get FD to produce evidence to support his claims is like trying to get Trump tp produce his tax returns.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 16, 2019 5:37:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:
No, I haven't taken any pages out of Trump's book. All thoughts and opinions are my own.

- Democrats hate America, the Constitution etc (full list here)
- Hope supports illegal immigration
- Far more people die of car accidents than they do gun violence
- Women who want to kill their own kids before or at birth are hypocrites for having empathy for kids in cages
- Women who want to have an abortion essentially want to kill their child when it has become inconvenient
(I read FounDit's one article about abortion at birth, I also read the act it refers to and it says "24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health." - so essentially, not at birth unless the mother is going to die or if the fetus isn't viable anyway. So hardly because it's inconvenient.)
- Having empathy for kids in cages means you want the US to let in any immigrant, illegal or otherwise
- Donald Trump is a good president
- All of us with different opinions to FounDit's are Leftists
- Hope and I are clairvoyant


I'd like to add to the list:
- Supreme Court has made foolish decisions
- The Democrats hope to be able to interpret the Constitution as they wish (and, presumably, the Republicans have the True Interpretation)
- Trump and his supporters have saved the republic.
- The socialists are assaulting the republic.

So far, though, not a single shred of evidence.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention, or choose not to see. Your mental scotoma is not my problem to solve.


Just for the record then, where is that evidence I'm not paying attention to? I checked all your posts in this thread and other than the one article that you wrongfully used to support your demonized opinion on abortion (and the one example BobShilling pointed out,) they're all evidence-less.
Demonized? I don't know what you are talking about. What is "demonizing" about stating a fact: that women demand the right to abort their babies whenever they choose? I pointedly named Roe vs. wade. It is a law here in the U.S.

Evidence from other threads teaches me that you'll turn to more ad hominems, strawman arguments and deflection through some variation of "you people are so HILARIOUS, which really means I don't have to explain myself, somehow".

Even when I do explain myself, you all choose to ignore it and claim no evidence. There are none so blind...etc.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
BobShilling
Posted: Saturday, August 17, 2019 3:30:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,171
Neurons: 6,367
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
Demonized? I don't know what you are talking about. What is "demonizing" about stating a fact: that women demand the right to abort their babies whenever they choose? I pointedly named Roe vs. wade. It is a law here in the U.S.


The Supreme Court decision in that case is not evidence that women demand the right to abort their babies whenever they choose. Decisions of that court are based on how a majority of the Supreme Court justices interpret the law. In any case, Roe vs Wade did not give women that right, rejecting the idea that a pregnant woman had an absolute right to abort her pregnancy was absolute; it ruled that the right to abortion must be balanced against certain other interests. During the third trimester, the state could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.

Quote:
Even when I do explain myself, you all choose to ignore it and claim no evidence. There are none so blind...etc.

Attempting to explain yourself does not necessarily involve offering evidence. Indeed, you very rarely offer evidence for any of your claims.
Lotje1000
Posted: Saturday, August 17, 2019 9:55:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,029
Neurons: 564,233
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Just for the record then, where is that evidence I'm not paying attention to? I checked all your posts in this thread and other than the one article that you wrongfully used to support your demonized opinion on abortion (and the one example BobShilling pointed out,) they're all evidence-less.

Demonized? I don't know what you are talking about. What is "demonizing" about stating a fact: that women demand the right to abort their babies whenever they choose? I pointedly named Roe vs. wade. It is a law here in the U.S.


1) "Where is that evidence I'm not paying attention to?" You haven't answered my question.
2) Demonized: See BobShilling's response. Roe vs Wade does not give women the right to abort their babies whenever they choose. It also does not let them do it whenever the babies are "inconvenient", to use your demonizing language. There is a law in the U.S. You're just misinterpreting it.


FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Evidence from other threads teaches me that you'll turn to more ad hominems, strawman arguments and deflection through some variation of "you people are so HILARIOUS, which really means I don't have to explain myself, somehow".

Even when I do explain myself, you all choose to ignore it and claim no evidence. There are none so blind...etc.


You have not explained yourself. You have continuously misinterpreted U.S. law on the subject of abortion and demonized women in the process. You've also not provided any of the evidence I have asked about. When you get to the point when you can't even provide evidence for the claim you have evidence, you're not doing to well debating things, FounDit. Feel free to claim we're blind, but if you have nothing to present, it doesn't really matter whether if I have mental or actual scotoma.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.