 |
In a revolting display, GOP members Santos (!), Luna, and Clyde are wearing A-15 assault weapons pins on their clothing. Ignoring the horrible connection to the mass murder of little children the pins represent, they are another example of the mind-boggling idiocy of the Republican Party.
And you thought Santos could not do anything nuttier than he has already done. There is no limit to this birdbrain's stupidity.
The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It resembles one, but that's as far as it goes. At any rate, the pins they wore could very well have represented genuine military grade fully auto weapons, so I think there are a great many other pins they would have been better advised to have worn. I would not have worn those, but what they did was not nearly as bad as those who wear pro-abortion pins and thus celebrate, as Athos put it, " the mass murder of little children."
This comment ( the horrible connection to the mass murder of little children the pins represent) and the title (GOP House Members Praise Mass Shootings) are both ridiculous hyperboly. I would suggest the entire Congress forget about the AR-15 issue and start trying to figure out how to behave like grown-ups and produce a balanced budget.
This is true . It has the same capability of a hunting rifle . But it is made to look like military weapons. All I see is a semi-automatic rifle ;not an "assault weapon "Quote:
The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It resembles one, but that's as far as it goes
That will be a great solace to the parents of the slaughtered children.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
At least someone weeps for those children. For the hundreds of thousands of "slaughtered children" from abortion, there is only the cheering of liberal dems.
The repubs aren't doing any weeping (or anything else) for the children who WEREN'T "slaughtered".
Yeah. It would be much better in the viewpoint of many if those kids were dead. But cheer up! If you liberal dems have your way, it could still happen.
What are repubs doing to help them and their moms who were talked into keeping them?
You would, I presume, be happier if the moms had been talked into killing them?
Answer my question, please.
Anti-abortionists don't answer questions they don't like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The issue of abortion is best understood by applying scientific fact to the question. The "pro-life" position (an oxymoron) is based on religious superstition.
Hence, the horrible false equivalence of comparing beautiful, adorable, loved pre-school and K-12 children to clumps of cells. How anyone could make such a hideous comparison is unbearable and heartrending to normal human beings - especially to the parents of the innocent slaughtered.
Sure. It depends on what you are asking. Are you asking what repubs do with their own money to help these women? I don't know. If you mean how much they are using a form of phony charity to force other people to take care of them, then that was settled decades ago. There are many federal programs which provide support, so I'm not sure why you would even ask that.Quote:
Answer my question, please.
I think you have a strange argument. You seem to suggest that if someone else is not willing to take care of a woman's baby, then that makes it alright for her to have her baby killed. That's a pretty bizarre point of view. Do you also support that idea for children already born?
It's also a bizarre idea to think that the federal government should be able to force other people to support that woman and her baby. Pro-lifers take a different view. We support many hundreds of private organizations with our own dollars that provide support for these women. These CPC's are located all across the country. They are all supported by pro-life organizations. The pro-death crowd couldn't care less.
I don't know about repubs. It's not my job to explain what they do. I do know that I reject the phony charity that you seem to promote. Forcing other people to help the poor is not charity. Having women kill their babies is not charity. I find that sense of "ethics" in this area to be revolting. Words cannot express how glad I am that I am not on the same pro-death side of this issue that you seem to be supportive of.
Was your oatmeal too hot this morning, JL?
Have you ever wondered, even asked a woman, WHY she wants an abortion?
Uhm...just did.Quote:
Anti-abortionists don't answer questions they don't like.
There is not one ounce of science supporting the pro-death position.Quote:
The issue of abortion is best understood by applying scientific fact to the question. The "pro-life" position (an oxymoron) is based on religious superstition.
You mean this 16 week "clump of cells"? Talk about a hideous comparison, you just made it. It's just a sick comment birthed by complete ignorance. That the two of you would support the violent destruction of such a beautiful, defenseless, innocent child is just beyond the pale. As I said before, words cannot express how glad I am that I am not on the same pro-death side of this issue that you are supportive of.Quote:
Hence, the horrible false equivalence of comparing beautiful, adorable, loved pre-school and K-12 children to clumps of cells. How anyone could make such a hideous comparison is unbearable and heartrending to normal human beings - especially to the parents of the innocent slaughtered.
And in case you want to suggest that the pic is inaccurate, I would suggest you get off your backside and search the web for yourself. It is completely accurate.
Attachment 49429
11111
So as it turns out, it's the pro-abortionists who don't answer questions they don't like.
This is a picture of an egg being fertilized. Does this look like a viable human being? Pro-lifers think it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
https://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/we...ut-quality=100
You are wrong in three ways.Quote:
This is a picture of an egg being fertilized. Does this look like a viable human being? Pro-lifers think it does.
1. Pro-lifers do not consider a non-fertilized egg (as in your pic) to yet be a separate human life. Science doesn't either, so your example is inadequate for your cause.
2. You have muddied the water by slipping in the "viable" adjective. "Viable" is generally taken to mean able to survive outside the womb. That is now set at about 24 weeks, but the problem with using that is that the age of viability is presently lower than in the past and will continue to go lower as technology improves. It seems awfully cold to allow the current state of technology to determine human life.
3. The viable standard is also a really slippery slope. A newborn is by no means able to survive on its own, so is it OK for it to be killed as well? Where do your excuses for killing children end?
You have neglected to address your fallacious assertion that the developing fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells", a statement so obviously misleading that it is amazing you would put it forward, and one which the pic I included shows to be absurd.
Well, by popular demand, I'll make an exception and read your post and reply.
Your familiar reading comprehension difficulty rears its ugly head again. Why am I not surprised? "BEING FERTILIZED", I wrote. BEING. That means in the process of, soon to be, not just yet, almost there but unavoidable.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That was for your benefit. In any case, it's irrelevant. Take it or leave it. Makes no difference here.Quote:
2. You have muddied the water by slipping in the "viable" adjective.
Yet you are promoting that very thing in your #2 point.Quote:
It seems awfully cold to allow the current state of technology to determine human life.
That's not the meaning of viable in this context as you should know.Quote:
A newborn is by no means able to survive on its own, so is it OK for it to be killed as well?
Where do your excuses for comparing children hideously killed in a mass shooting, comparing them to the issue of abortion which is overwhelmingly approved by the majority of Americans, end? That is about the sickest thing you've ever posted, and you've posted some really sick things.Quote:
Where do your excuses for killing children end?
It's that reading thing again. The picture is not even at the stage of a clump of cells yet, that comes later. You seem very confused about the process of gestation. Of course, a stage is a clump of cells. In your haste to make a point, you fall into the trap of letting your emotions replace your thinking.Quote:
You have neglected to address your fallacious assertion that the developing fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells", a statement so obviously misleading that it is amazing you would put it forward, and one which the pic I included shows to be absurd.
Unless you come up with something worthy of a reply, I will now depart from this exchange with you. As always, I've enjoyed replying to you and, most of all, teaching you, always hoping you will read carefully and consider.
Why do women get abortions?
Why do women get abortions? That data is all over the internet. Look here. Took about three minutes to find this from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned non-Parenthood.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/def...ls/3711005.pdf
But even asking the question is concerning. No one asks, "Why did that woman kill her six month old? Did she have a reason that was significant enough to allow for the taking of her child's life?" If you stop and think about it, your question is, for the most part, irrelevant.
I suspect you really don't know why.
The best reason for men to keep their pants zipped up is so women don't want and get abortions.
I suspect you really don't care why. When faced with the cold truth, you just choose to run from it.Quote:
I suspect you really don't know why.
I don't run from stupid and useless responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No. You just run from the truth. You don't even bother to read it.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/def...ls/3711005.pdf
I did read it. The women got pregnant by abusive partners and for negative reasons. Read the "Reasons for Abortions" section. Why can't men say no or take no for an answer?!
You asked me a question. I gave you an answer. I still don't know what the purpose of the question was. My solution is to encourage people to abstain from sex, both men and women, until marriage. It's a solution you have consistently refused to endorse.
Wow! Your first mention of that!!! I agree with you! And they should make sure the marriage is a good one, solid as a rock!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You have a really short memory. I have said that many times, but I am glad that you do agree with that much.Quote:
Your first mention of that!!
The manefestation of a bigger problem - Page 16 (askmehelpdesk.com)
Ah, so it's all women's fault. No wonder I blocked it out of my mind.
You finally figured it out! I congratulate you. [SARC]Quote:
Ah, so it's all women's fault
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:35 PM. |