Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Looks like the Left can finally stop pretending now...


NYC ready to legalize Abortion Up To Birth.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Looks like the Left can finally stop pretending now...


NYC ready to legalize Abortion Up To Birth.


But they didn't legalize it just yet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But they didn't legalize it just yet.


Oh but They Want to and They Will!

What will you excuse for Buckets of Baby Parts be then?

Still gonna use the "Its just a Clump of Cells" Argument?

dur

euro

Ill never understand a baby isnt a human and deserves no rights until born, but a guy who wants to be a girl is "science"

The Logic... here's an apple and here is an orange let's debate them as the same object.

And this is what people have been saying it's not about the rights of the woman it's about murdering innocence.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Ill never understand a baby isnt a human and deserves no rights until born, but a guy who wants to be a girl is "science"

I'll never understand how some of these people who are pro choice are also in favor of charging someone with murder if they beat a pregnant woman so badly she miscarries.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
The Logic... here's an apple and here is an orange let's debate them as the same object.

Closely related, a baby by science is a human being that isnt born yet but will be.

A man who has XY chromosomes will always be a man even after surgery, or thought process, but we are supposed to treat that person as a girl if they so think it true.

"HORROR: New York Set To Legalize Abortion Up To Birth"

Retarded sensationalist headlines to draw in retarded sensationalist types who fall for clickbait and you retards fall for it every damn time. But that's what you get with your Alt-Right news. Anyhow.

Reality: This new law has the provision that a woman can late-term terminate if her life is at risk due to complications. Previously in NY the law only allowed up to 24 weeks if the mother's life was at risk.

Originally posted by Robtard
"HORROR: New York Set To Legalize Abortion Up To Birth"

Retarded sensationalist headlines to draw in retarded sensationalist types who fall for clickbait and you retards fall for it every damn time. But that's what you get with your Alt-Right news. Anyhow.

Reality: This new law has the provision that a woman can late-term terminate if her life is at risk due to complications. Previously in NY the law only allowed up to 24 weeks if the mother's life was at risk.

Damn those sensationalist headlines, amirite? Sensational! It sure would be best to avoid them.

Oh and robby rob: it says "life or health" is at risk.

Don't worry, a piece of shit would never interpret that to mean "well her mental health could be impacted by having this kid" so we're good! Leftists aren't insane enough to ever do that.

Originally posted by Robtard
"HORROR: New York Set To Legalize Abortion Up To Birth"

Retarded sensationalist headlines to draw in retarded sensationalist types who fall for clickbait and you retards fall for it every damn time. But that's what you get with your Alt-Right news. Anyhow.

Reality: This new law has the provision that a woman can late-term terminate if her life is at risk due to complications. Previously in NY the law only allowed up to 24 weeks if the mother's life was at risk.



They're not doing it for that reason. That's how The Left operate they're degenerate psychopaths they just pretend to care about people to help push their agenda.

Originally posted by Surtur
Damn those sensationalist headlines, amirite? Sensational! It sure would be best to avoid them. Says the retard who fell for yet another spin story from the Dailystormerwire.

Originally posted by Deadline
They're not doing it for that reason. That's how The Left operate they're degenerate psychopaths they just pretend to care about people to help push their agenda.

Originally posted by Robtard
Says the retard who fell for yet another spin story from the Dailystormerwire.

Oh? My first comment in this thread had nothing to do with the article. Where did I fall for it? Quote it, now.

In some instances if you go deep enough you will see devil worship were The Left is involved. Something I would do more research on but for now it's just too upsetting.

Originally posted by Deadline
In some instances if you go deep enough you will see devil worship were The Left is involved. Something I would do more research on but for now it's just too upsetting.

Okay. Funny. Hopefully you're just taking a piss here.

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh and robby rob: it says "life or health" is at risk.

Don't worry, a piece of shit would never interpret that to mean "well her mental health could be impacted by having this kid" so we're good! Leftists aren't insane enough to ever do that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay. Funny. Hopefully you're just taking a piss here.

Reminds me of how I felt when you suggested Trump sent out missile strikes cuz Russia

Originally posted by Surtur


You and your pretend scenarios, but if you want to believe women getting abortions at nine months because of 'feelings' or some shit will be the norm, you go on ahead. Try not to clutch too hard though, might get a cramp.

Originally posted by Surtur
Reminds me of how I felt when you suggested Trump sent out missile strikes cuz Russia

Trump did order a nigh useless missile strike, sport. That happened, unlike your pretend scenarios.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump did order a nigh useless missile strike, sport. That happened, unlike your pretend scenarios.

But it wasn't cuz of Russia, but don't worry you were just taking a piss you weren't dumb enough to believe it, so respect

Originally posted by Robtard
You and your pretend scenarios, but if you want to believe women getting abortions at nine months because of 'feelings' or some shit will be the norm, you go on ahead. Try not to clutch too hard though, might get a cramp.

The wording of it is open to potential abuse, but hey lets ignore that cuz...reasons?

Originally posted by Surtur
The wording of it is open to potential abuse, but hey lets ignore that cuz...reasons?

The legitimate reasons: There's usually a risk of potential abuse with most laws/institutions; that doesn't mean you deny the masses of something that's sensible because a minority might abuse the system.

eg Our welfare system while it needs to be reformed, is needed and we don't deny the many who legitimately need it because there's a minority of freeloaders who abuse it

Originally posted by Robtard
The legitimate reasons: There's usually a risk of potential abuse with most laws/institutions; that doesn't mean you deny the masses of something that's sensible because a minority might abuse the system.

eg Our welfare system while it needs to be reformed, is needed and we don't deny the many who legitimately need it because there's a minority of freeloaders who abuse it

I'm glad it will never be abused! Good stuff.

Btw, there is never ever to be a "if it even saves one life" argument from the left again about gun control. That's gone.

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay. Funny. Hopefully you're just taking a piss here.

Nope but I don't mean you're average leftist I mean high level people. I think there are a lot of well meaning leftists that are wrong.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm glad it will never be abused! Good stuff.

Btw, there is never ever to be a "if it even saves one life" argument from the left again about gun control. That's gone.

If "it might be abused" is reason enough to throw out the baby with the bathwater as the saying goes, then we should completely do away with welfare and then you'd be f***ed as you'd have no welfare system to scam.

Now you're conflating a woman's rights to her own body with gun violence? Weirdo.

ps It's obvious you're fully against abortion rights, as you always end up here. Why you lie about it is funny though. There's plenty of Pro-Life people who feel the same, man up to your beliefs.

Originally posted by Deadline
Nope but I don't mean you're average leftist I mean high level people. I think there are a lot of well meaning leftists that are wrong.

Okay then, "evil devil worshiping leftist" it is.

Originally posted by Robtard
If "it might be abused" is reason enough to throw out the baby with the bathwater as the saying goes, then we should completely do away with welfare and then you'd be ****ed and you'd have no welfare system to scam.

Now you're conflating a woman's rights to her own body with gun violence? Weirdo.

ps It's obvious you're fully against abortion rights, as you always end up here. Why you lie about it is funny though. There's plenty of Pro-Life people who feel the same, man up to your beliefs.

I want you dipshits to choose, that's all. Either it's a life or it's not. You will not say a man beating a pregnant so badly she miscarries deserves to be charged with murder and then claim momma doing it isn't murder. Period. That is over.

Originally posted by Robtard
If "it might be abused" is reason enough to throw out the baby with the bathwater as the saying goes, then we should completely do away with welfare and then you'd be f***ed as you'd have no welfare system to scam.

Now you're conflating a woman's rights to her own body with gun violence? Weirdo.

ps It's obvious you're fully against abortion rights, as you always end up here. Why you lie about it is funny though. There's plenty of Pro-Life people who feel the same, man up to your beliefs.

Er the baby has rights as well. It's not just her body she has something living inside her.... facepalm

Oh and about my gun comment, lunatic leftists have spouted this "if it even saves one life yo!" logic when it comes to gun control(strangely this is never applied to illegal immigrants, weird!). You guys have utterly forfeited this stance. Why is this hard to get?

If stricter regulations on abortion safe even one life...amirite? Cuz abortions that are done due to health concerns to the mother are super rare.

Originally posted by Surtur
I want you dipshits to choose, that's all. Either it's a life or it's not. You will not say a man beating a pregnant so badly she miscarries deserves to be charged with murder and then claim momma doing it isn't murder. Period. That is over.

Facts: They did, why there's term limits on when an abortion can be done and if it goes over the limit there has to be a medical reason such as the mother's life is in jeopardy or the infant has some genetic disorder where it can't survive outside the womb



ps The assaulting pregnant women thing is something you constantly hark on about, done it many a time. You did it in this very thread 3-4 times alone now. It's like a fantasy of yours that slips out.

Originally posted by Deadline
Er the baby has rights as well. It's not just her body she has something living inside her.... facepalm


This is why there's limits on abortions and when they can and can't occur

Originally posted by Robtard
Facts: They did, why there's term limits on when an abortion can be done and if it goes over the limit there has to be medical reason such as the mother's life is in jeopardy or the infant has some genetic disorder where it can't survive outside the womb



ps The assaulting pregnant women thing is something you constantly hark on about, done it many a time. You did it in this very thread 3-4 times alone now. It's like a fantasy of yours that slips out.

It's no fantasy, it's just an easy way to point out you guys are quite stupid.

I love seeing lunatics support abortion and yet act like it's a life in other situations. Fee fee's over facts yo! The democrat motto.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is why there's limits on abortions and when they can and can't occur

But if stricter regulations on abortion save even one life...

Originally posted by Robtard
This is why there's limits on abortions and when they can and can't occur

I'm simply pointing out that saying it's about her body is wrong. A fetus is still alive.

EDIT: I may have to duck out from this discussion this maybe too upsetting for me.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'm simply pointing out that saying it's about her body is wrong. A fetus is still alive.

EDIT: I may have to duck out from this discussion this maybe too upsetting for me.

It's her body, so if you removed her heart she'd still survive, cuz the babies heart is hers too and not a separate being. That's just a scientific fact.

Originally posted by Surtur
I want you dipshits to choose, that's all. Either it's a life or it's not. You will not say a man beating a pregnant so badly she miscarries deserves to be charged with murder and then claim momma doing it isn't murder. Period. That is over. i really hope u see the difference between the 2 scenarios here and u acting like those 2 things are the same is just part of ur usual back and forth with rob.

Originally posted by Raptor22
i really hope u see the difference between the 2 scenarios here and u acting like those 2 things are the same is just part of ur usual back and forth with rob.

The argument from some people is that abortion isn't murder cuz it's not a life.

If it's not a life it can't be murdered by *anyone*. So it makes no sense to charge someone with homicide over causing a miscarriage.

If people want to acknowledge "it's a life, and only momma can snuff it out!" I'm cool with it, but I want them to say it. I want it typed out, "Momma can kill it, nobody else can". I'd go along with it.

I am not even joking, I would not make abortion illegal even if it was in my power. I'm just tired of them playing fast and loose with what constitutes a life.

Originally posted by Raptor22
i really hope u see the difference between the 2 scenarios here and u acting like those 2 things are the same is just part of ur usual back and forth with rob.

I wish, truly I do.

Surt's just an anti-abortion mouth breather bringing in irrelevant scenarios and here's the kicker, it's not about "saving a life" which the religious people believe and I can at least respect that angle even if I'm Pro-Choice, he sees it as a way to punish women; that's his drive here. ie "B!tch didn't want a baby; she should have kept her legs closed."

Originally posted by Robtard
I wish, truly I do.

Surt's just an anti-abortion mouth breather bringing in irrelevant scenarios and here's the kicker, it's not about "saving a life" which the religious people believe and I can at least respect that angle even if I'm Pro-Choice, he sees it as a way to punish women; that's his drive here. ie "B!tch didn't want a baby; she should have kept her legs closed."

You're not very bright Rob, you continue to show it. I want you guys to be consistent, that is all. Either it's a life or it's not. I don't care what you choose, but you absolutely do need to choose.

Not my problem if people lack the intelligence to understand why it's hypocritical.

Originally posted by Surtur
The argument from some people is that abortion isn't murder cuz it's not a life.

If it's not a life it can't be murdered by *anyone*. So it makes no sense to charge someone with homicide over causing a miscarriage.

If people want to acknowledge "it's a life, and only momma can snuff it out!" I'm cool with it, but I want them to say it. ok but there is an enormous difference between the two scenarios in ur analogy, in which ur acting like they're exactly the same, yet in reality they're massively different.

On one hand u have a guy who beats a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage and on the other hand u have a woman who's life/health are in danger and decides to abort.

To make it a more fair comparison they guy in your analogy would have to have his life/health in jeopardy and the cause of it would have to be the pregnant woman, If that were the case then no it wouldnt be murder it would be self defense.

Originally posted by Raptor22
ok but there is an enormous difference between the two scenarios in ur analogy, in which ur acting like they're exactly the same, yet in reality they're massively different.

On one hand u have a guy who beats a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage and on the other hand u have a woman who's life/health are in danger and decides to abort.

To make it a more fair comparison they guy in your analogy would have to have his life/health in jeopardy and the cause of it would have to be the pregnant woman, If that were the case then no it wouldnt be murder it would be self defense.

Bro, I think it's best you not even bring up abortions that are done due to the womans life being in danger. Its not genuine, because it's so very rare, most abortions are not done over it. It's not a legit argument. Murder is murder. If the womans life is legit in danger its self defense to abort the kid. If she was just too lazy or too stupid to take the pill or use a condom? It's not the same.

Like I said: either it's a life or it's not. If it IS a life, No, momma can't snuff it. What have I said that is controversial here?

You implied the 'whore should have kept her legs close' angle before, granted you use kinder words such as 'why didn't she use a condom, too bad for her' more times than not.

Originally posted by Robtard
You implied the 'whore should have kept her legs close' angle before, granted you use kinder words such as 'why didn't she use a condom, too bad for her' more times than not.

Indeed I feel keep your legs closed or have the dude wear a condom or be on the pill. Legs don't spring open on a reflex, it's a choice.

Point out what I've said that is not accurate. Do women not have a choice about who they f*ck and if protection is used?

Originally posted by Surtur
Bro, I think it's best you not even bring up abortions that are done due to the womans life being in danger. Its not genuine, because it's so very rare, most abortions are not done over it. It's not a legit argument. Murder is murder. If the womans life is legit in danger its self defense to abort the kid. If she was just too lazy or too stupid to take the pill or use a condom? It's not the same.

Like I said: either it's a life or it's not. If it IS a life, No, momma can't snuff it. What have I said that is controversial here?

You're acting like abortions can be had at any time and for any reasons when ouf laws saw otherwise.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're acting like abortions can be had at any time and for any reasons when ouf laws saw otherwise.

I'm just gonna simplify this: a woman who is two months pregnant gets attacked and beaten, she survives, but loses the baby. The perpetrator should be charged with..what crime?

Your answer will tell me all I need to know. I will say this in advance: props to you if you aren't dumb enough to shout "murder!"

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed I feel keep your legs closed or have the dude wear a condom or be on the pill. Legs don't spring open on a reflex, it's a choice.

Point out what I've said that is not accurate. Do women not have a choice about who they f*ck and if protection is used?

Thank you for proving what I said correct.

Fact: A woman can have sex with a willing partner of her choice with or without protection as many times as she wants and it's none of your* business if she gets pregnant and an abortion is done within our legal scope.

*The only way it would be your business if you're the willing partner. But that's a pretend scenario, so my bad there

Originally posted by Robtard
Thank you for proving what I said correct.

Fact: A woman can have sex with a willing partner of her choice with or without protection as many times as she wants and it's none of your* business if she gets pregnant and an abortion is done within our legal scope.

*The only way it would be your business if you're the willing partner. But that's a pretend scenario, so my bad there

Good stuff Rob, you resort to the same old attacks

Originally posted by Surtur
Good stuff Rob, you resort to the same old attacks

Yes, I resorted to facts, why you did this dodge-like reply instead of countering what I said.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, I resorted to facts, why you did this dodge-like reply instead of countering what I said.

You didn't resort to facts, you resorted to an opinion. Why do I have to point this out to an adult?

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm just gonna simplify this: a woman who is two months pregnant gets attacked and beaten, she survives, but loses the baby. The perpetrator should be charged with..what crime?

Your answer will tell me all I need to know. I will say this in advance: props to you if you aren't dumb enough to shout "murder!"

Some degree of murder, as per our laws, sporto.

You thought you were clever though, as has been pointed out to you many a time and Raptor22 just did it above, your scenarios are nonsense and not applicable.

"Abortion is legal so I should be allowed to force a woman to miscarriage against her will by beating her!!!" <--- Utter retardation, that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Some degree of murder, as per our laws, sporto.

You thought you were clever though, as has been pointed out to you many a time and Raptor22 just did it above, your scenarios are nonsense and not applicable.

"Abortion is legal so I should be allowed to force a woman to miscarriage against her will by beating her!!!" <--- Utter retardation, that.

So you still wanna play dumb? Okay. Moving on.

Originally posted by Surtur
You didn't resort to facts, you resorted to an opinion. Why do I have to point this out to an adult?

Sorry, it's not an opinion that a woman has the right to have sex with whomever willing partner she chooses and it's none of your business; that's a fact.

Best you deal with it and stop tying to punish women because you can't get laid. That's another fact.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, it's not an opinion that a woman has the right to have sex with whomever willing partner she chooses and it's none of your business; that's a fact.

Best you deal with it and stop tying to punish women because you can't get laid. That's another fact.

Lol your post didn't contain pure facts. It's not even gonna be debated further.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol your post didn't contain pure facts. It's not even gonna be debated further. Originally posted by Surtur
So you still wanna play dumb? Okay. Moving on.

More dodge-replies because you can't handle the facts.

Hush now son, it's over.

It is, cos you got crushed with facts above. Now seethe some more over it.

Originally posted by Robtard
It is, cos you got crushed with facts above. Now seethe some more over it.

No Rob, only your pathetic pals will agree with this. It's cuz you pull your same bullshit. You always do this. It's getting more and more transparent, but what I love? Is when you play dumb.

Go on, do it again. I want to see you act like you have no idea what I'm talking about.

So Raptor22 is now "my pathetic pal" too because he also sees right through your ridiculous anti-abortion analogies here and broke down your points just the same using logic and reason and facts? Okay then, rageboy, you're done here, go take a nap or something.

Originally posted by Robtard
So Raptor22 is now "my pathetic pal" too because he also sees right through your ridiculous anti-abortion analogies here and broke down your points just the same using logic and reason and facts? Okay then, rageboy, you're done here, go take a nap or something.

I actually wasn't referring to him, he's just apparently not grasping what I'm saying. If he has a legit explanation for why dipshits can claim it's a life only if momma don't snuff it out I'm legit open to hearing it. So far no legit explanation has been given.

I await a legitimate argument...if there is one to be made. So far? Nada. Deal with it.

Oh no, he's fully grasping what you're saying and why he also tore down your irrelevant points on the matter.

It's been done; you ignore it every time.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh no, he's fully grasping what you're saying and why he also tore down your irrelevant points on the matter.

It's been done; you ignore it every time.

Nothing was torn down, jesus is this like a disease with you guys? Just like Bash claiming Adam "tore down" the Convinton narrative. These things exist just in your minds.

The last page of you not countering to points but instead responding with sharky dodges says otherwise.

Originally posted by Robtard
The last page of you not countering to points but instead responding with sharky dodges says otherwise.

The points were shit, present a valid one and I promise to counter it.

Pinky swear, present an actual valid argument. Explain why it's not a life cuz momma snuffed it, but it magically transforms into a life if someone else does.

Oh? And you need to use science.

Trying to convince you of something once you've dug in is nigh pointless, as has been shown again.

Going to let you in on a little not secret, you know how I know your angle is retarded? Because long ago in my younger and more stupid years I had the same beliefs. Luckily I outgrew that retardation there.

Originally posted by Surtur
Bro, I think it's best you not even bring up abortions that are done due to the womans life being in danger. Its not genuine, because it's so very rare, most abortions are not done over it. It's not a legit argument. Murder is murder. If the womans life is legit in danger its self defense to abort the kid. If she was just too lazy or too stupid to take the pill or use a condom? It's not the same.

Like I said: either it's a life or it's not. If it IS a life, No, momma can't snuff it. What have I said that is controversial here? but having their life and/or health in danger is the wording of the proposed law in question that this threads about. Also i bring it up because even if it is rare (i have no idea about the actual statistics or if it is or isnt) its still a legitimate reason to have the option available so are pregnancys that are the result of a forced marriage, rape etc...

U keep trying to come up with hypothetical scenarios where u believe ur exposing an imperfection in a rule that pro chioce people think is perfect. but like any rule or law its not going to be perfect and will always be flawed. That doesnt mean we dont need them. Sometimes all there are, are shitty options, and we have to choose the least shitty out of the shit.

There are 2 sides pro and anti, but even within each side everyone has differing opinions and lines they draw. Different reasons as to when and why its acceptable or not.

Anyone on either side can come up with any number of hypothetical scenerios to punch holes in the oppositions views.

U think its ok if the mothers life is in danger. What if the mothers life is only in danger due to expected complications from the mothers excessive alcohol intake during her pregnancy? Its her own fault thru her selfish choices like in ur "whore" scenerios. Should she be allowed to get an abortion.

What about rape victims?

Before 24 weeks or after?

What if they're raped and dont know they're pregnat until past the deadline or cant get to a doctor?

What if the victim is a minor?

What if its after 24 weeks but shes 15 and the rapist is a family member and in a position of power over her and she couldnt get away sooner?

What if she cant prove shes been raped?

Should she have too?


There are no good or easy answers. Just the least shitty of the shit. And even though abortion might be a shitty solution it has to be an option available to those women who need it.

Lastly i already explained what was controversial. Ur analogy that compared 2 things as equals that were actually miles apart.

Originally posted by Raptor22
ok but there is an enormous difference between the two scenarios in ur analogy, in which ur acting like they're exactly the same, yet in reality they're massively different.

On one hand u have a guy who beats a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage and on the other hand u have a woman who's life/health are in danger and decides to abort.

To make it a more fair comparison they guy in your analogy would have to have his life/health in jeopardy and the cause of it would have to be the pregnant woman, If that were the case then no it wouldnt be murder it would be self defense.
So here's a question, if a woman causes her own abortion via excessive drug/alcohol use or negligence like horseback riding be charged with murder?

Originally posted by Raptor22
but having their life and/or health in danger is the wording of the proposed law in question that this threads about. Also i bring it up because even if it is rare (i have no idea about the actual statistics or if it is or isnt) its still a legitimate reason to have the option available so are pregnancys that are the result of a forced marriage, rape etc...

U keep trying to come up with hypothetical scenarios where u believe ur exposing an imperfection in a rule that pro chioce people think is perfect. but like any rule or law its not going to be perfect and will always be flawed. That doesnt mean we dont need them. Sometimes all there are, are shitty options, and we have to choose the least shitty out of the shit.

There are 2 sides pro and anti, but even within each side everyone has differing opinions and lines they draw. Different reasons as to when and why its acceptable or not.

Anyone on either side can come up with any number of hypothetical scenerios to punch holes in the oppositions views.

U think its ok if the mothers life is in danger. What if the mothers life is only in danger due to expected complications from the mothers excessive alcohol intake during her pregnancy? Its her own fault thru her selfish choices like in ur "whore" scenerios. Should she be allowed to get an abortion.

What about rape victims?

Before 24 weeks or after?

What if they're raped and dont know they're pregnat until past the deadline or cant get to a doctor?

What if the victim is a minor?

What if its after 24 weeks but shes 15 and the rapist is a family member and in a position of power over her and she couldnt get away sooner?

What if she cant prove shes been raped?

Should she have too?


There are no good or easy answers. Just the least shitty of the shit. And even though abortion might be a shitty solution it has to be an option available to those women who need it.

Lastly i already explained what was controversial. Ur analogy that compared 2 things as equals that were actually miles apart.
I'm pro choice, but you're using extreme examples to support a blanket policy which seems a little... "off". Suppose there was allowances/exceptions made for all the extremes... rape, incest, under the age of legal consent, etc. Would you then be ok with a law against abortion?

Originally posted by darthgoober
So here's a question, if a woman causes her own abortion via excessive drug/alcohol use or negligence like horseback riding be charged with murder?


I'm pro choice, but you're using extreme examples to support a blanket policy which seems a little... "off". Suppose there was allowances/exceptions made for all the extremes... rape, incest, under the age of legal consent, etc. Would you then be ok with a law against abortion? id have to put some thought into those to avoid speaking from a place of ignorance. But that kinda of goes to my whole point of there being no easy answers.


My intention wasnt to use those extreme examples to support my personal policy but to show Surtur that any/either/both sides could use extreme hypotheticals to poke holes in the other side.

That last question is super complicated and not trying to beat a dead horse but no easy answer lol.

First theres no way to cover all the extremes. I mean how much crazy, unbelievable, stuff happens everyday that no one could ever predict. What happens when something extreme happens that none of the law makers thought of? What counts as extreme and what doesnt and who decides?

After those decisions are made, would there be some sort of interview/interrogation process, where rape, incest, etc... would have to be proven befor a procedure be allowed? What if theres no documentaion or proof? Is it claim denied? If none of those things are implemented what would stop anyone from just claiming rape to get an abortion card?

Thats why my position isnt based on wheather its good or bad, right or wrong, or my own personal morality. Those things have to be thrown out the window for the greater good(screw u Grindewald for making that sound evil). My opinion is based on my belief that its necessary in a world with so much variability the best solution is the one with the most options available to the people who need them the most.

The Last 2 posts were quite refreshing after several pages of Robbies Normal Trolling Antics.

Originally posted by Raptor22
but having their life and/or health in danger is the wording of the proposed law in question that this threads about.

Awesome! And my comment wasn't about the article though, it was very specifically about a certain type of person. I felt that was clear in my original post, perhaps it wasn't.



No see I wasn't talking about exposing the rule talked about in the article as imperfect. I've made this point many times in the past.



And I'm just gonna snip away the rest of your post because it never addresses my original point cuz it's all crazy hypothetical's that are utterly irrelevant to my main point.

Either it's a life or it's not. If it's not a life it is not capable of being murdered by anyone. Please come up with a counter argument to that logic. And "the law says abortion isn't murder" is not a counter argument to it because "but the law!" is not the excuse some give. I guarantee sometime in your life you've heard someone make the "it's not murder cuz it's not a life" argument.

.

Matt always gives an interesting perspective into things:

In Signing New Abortion Expansion, Cuomo Misleads on Roe v Wade

ntNzchdHsqg

Now it looks like New York wants to Save the lives of ACTUAL MURDERS from Death Row, but still All OK with Piles of Dead Babies.

Leftists are truly Horrible People.

Quote from Virginia Governor:

"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he continued. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

To the leftists here, what do you think he means when he says there will be a "discussion" between and physicians and the mother. Sounds like he is saying, even if they resuscitate the baby, there will still be a discussion in whether or not to kill it.

I'd love an alternate interpretation.

Stop being a hypocrite Surt, you contribute nothing.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Looks like the Left can finally stop pretending now...


NYC ready to legalize Abortion Up To Birth.

And now other states are following New York's lead.

Why? I don't know. States always follow in New York and California's footsteps, for some reason.

Originally posted by Surtur
Quote from Virginia Governor:

"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he continued. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

To the leftists here, what do you think he means when he says there will be a "discussion" between and physicians and the mother. Sounds like he is saying, even if they resuscitate the baby, there will still be a discussion in whether or not to kill it.

I'd love an alternate interpretation. or they could he discussing the mother keeping the baby, adoption, foster homes etc...

Originally posted by Raptor22
or they could he discussing the mother keeping the baby, adoption, foster homes etc...

That's what I'd guess.


For me, the words "delivery" and anything that ends in a dead infant is a non starter.

The right may be cucks, but they're right: Once you deliver a baby and alllow if to die, that is infantcide.

Why would a physician be talking about adpotion etc with a patient, that isn't their job. hospitals have counselors for that.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why would a physician be talking about adpotion etc with a patient, that isn't their job. hospitals have counselors for that.

And why would they wait until after a baby is born before discussing adoption? I'm confused. Is the implication that the woman wanted it, but since it was a threat to her during labor she might change her mind?

Please Stop Killing Undocumented Infants Who Are Just Trying To Cross The Border Of The Birth Canal

All of that sounds like it would be planned in advance though, as opposed to discussing it once you've confirmed the baby is alive.

Originally posted by Surtur
All of that sounds like it would be planned in advance though, as opposed to discussing it once you've confirmed the baby is alive. none of which has anything to do with the incredibly stupid question posed to me by silent thatl i was answering, which was -

"Why would a physician be talking about adpotion etc with a patient, that isn't their job. hospitals have counselors for that."

As for ur point. Terminating it also sounds like it would be planned in advance, yet in ur opinion thats what they would be discussing.

Also why would they want to terminate it at that point in the hypothetical in ur quote. It flat out says it would be resuscitated if the mother and family desires. Why would the mother/family decide to resuscitate it if they wanted it terminated?

Originally posted by Raptor22
none of which has anything to do with the incredibly stupid question posed to me by silent thatl i was answering, which was -

"Why would a physician be talking about adpotion etc with a patient, that isn't their job. hospitals have counselors for that."

As for ur point. Terminating it also sounds like it would be planned in advance, yet in ur opinion thats what they would be discussing.

Also why would they want to terminate it at that point in the hypothetical in ur quote. It flat out says it would be resuscitated if the mother and family desires. Why would the mother/family decide to resuscitate it if they wanted it terminated?

I don't know why they'd want to terminate it it then. I asked for an alternative explanation and so far nobody has given one that makes sense.

Originally posted by Surtur
All of that sounds like it would be planned in advance though, as opposed to discussing it once you've confirmed the baby is alive.

He is purposely misconstruing my point. it's one of his favorite tactics.

The context of the discussion makes it obvious that we aren't talking about prenatal advice.

Originally posted by Raptor22
none of which has anything to do with the incredibly stupid question posed to me by silent thatl i was answering, which was -

"Why would a physician be talking about adpotion etc with a patient, that isn't their job. hospitals have counselors for that."

As for ur point. Terminating it also sounds like it would be planned in advance, yet in ur opinion thats what they would be discussing.

Also why would they want to terminate it at that point in the hypothetical in ur quote. It flat out says it would be resuscitated if the mother and family desires. Why would the mother/family decide to resuscitate it if they wanted it terminated?

Originally posted by Raptor22
none of which has anything to do with the incredibly stupid question posed to me by silent thatl i was answering, which was -

"Why would a physician be talking about adpotion etc with a patient, that isn't their job. hospitals have counselors for that."

As for ur point. Terminating it also sounds like it would be planned in advance, yet in ur opinion thats what they would be discussing.

Also why would they want to terminate it at that point in the hypothetical in ur quote. It flat out says it would be resuscitated if the mother and family desires. Why would the mother/family decide to resuscitate it if they wanted it terminated?


Maybe because some Doctor's think it IS their jobs to SAVE LIVES!

This kind if FILTH is what happens when you let POLITICIANS decide how MEDICAL Practice and or Science WORK!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't know why they'd want to terminate it it then. I asked for an alternative explanation and so far nobody has given one that makes sense. u cant be serious right now. So in the scenerio where the mother/family decide to resuscitate their baby, then have a discussion with her doctor. U think it makes sense for them to be discussing terminating the baby they just resuscitated, and u think it makes no sense for them to be discussing possible alternatives such as adoption, foster homes etc... for the baby they just decided to resuscitate?

According to the Law. YES. That Is what is Now Legal in some states.
But don't worry. They will soon make Post Birth Abortions Legal Too.

Originally posted by Silent Master
He is purposely misconstruing my point. it's one of his favorite tactics.

The context of the discussion makes it obvious that we aren't talking about prenatal advice. interesting claim. I assume u have some proof of this.

So sounding dumb wasnt enough, ur going to go for dumb and pathetic now? Go big or go home i guess.

I clearly wasnt talking about prenatal advice either, since, u know, the entire discussion revolves around a hypothetical scenerio where the infant is already delivered. Every comment has been referencing a discussion happening post natal, the link provided discusses a doctors role in the adoption procedure both pre and post natal, and the part i quoted even talks about the freaking dr occasionally personally delivering the infant to the adoptive parents (which would happen post natal). But in ur opinion they wouldnt discuss adoption with the parent because thats what counselors are for. Lol.

Your words. No misconstruing-

"Why would a physician be talking about adpotion etc with a patient, that isn't their job. hospitals have counselors for that."

I disproved that stupid notion then u try to muddy the waters with your nah i wasnt talking pre natal. No shit, nobody was. Ur attempt at obfuscation was as transparent as it was pathetic.

U ever hear the saying "its better to keep silent and have someone think your stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Its good advice. Take a cue from ur screen name and try it sometime.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
According to the Law. YES. That Is what is Now Legal in some states.
But don't worry. They will soon make Post Birth Abortions Legal Too.

Honestly, I'm about as triggered that whenever New York does something, other states have to follow suit.

It's like New York is the Don, that every state has to prostrate themselves before.

Do I have proof of what I meant? yeah. I just told you what I meant. me >>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else in terms of knowing my point.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Do I have proof of what I meant? yeah. I just told you what I meant. me >>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else in terms of knowing my point. god ur dense. No u fool the first claim u made in the post.

"He is purposely misconstruing my point. it's one of his favorite tactics."

Maybe show a few times of me doing it, maybe enough to warrant it being a favorite tactic of mine like u claimed. Also some proof of me purposely doing it would be nice too since that was also part of ur claim. Unless it was just another one of ur baseless claims.

A few words on ur part about me dismantling this-

"Why would a physician be talking about adpotion etc with a patient, that isn't their job. hospitals have counselors for that."

-debacle of a post for a 2nd time would be nice as well. Or are u just going to ignore it and scurry away with ur tail between ur legs?

Why would I waste my time searching your posting history?

Cause Masochism?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why would I waste my time searching your posting history? gotcha. More worthless drivel and baseless assertions from u. Ill remember this thread next time i see u ask h1 or josh or anyone else to provide proof of one of their claims, back up a statement, call them a hypocrite or troll. Since that basically makes up the majority of ur schtick this should be quite entertaining.

Still no response for the rest? Tail between the legs it is. Id say i expected more from u, but we both know thats not true.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f4/d5/f1/f4d5f1150817dd47ca28ab9ac47a29cc--girl-memes-deadbeat-dad.jpg

If it's worthless drivel, why are you so triggered?

Can you Prove this "Triggering" with out posting to outside articles?

Originally posted by Silent Master
If it's worthless drivel, why are you so triggered? Tap tap tap

Tap tap tap

Shhhh, whats that i hear?

Tap tap tap

Is it? Could it be? Well gosh i think it is. I think silent started his little tap dance around the subject again.

Starting the dance a little early aren't we? Oh well, my fault for expecting u to have the pride to hold yourself to the same standards u hold others too.

Im curious, does your lack of a spine make it easier for u dance all around?

Tap tap taparoo, keep shakin it for me silent

Rap is Fap for the Tap.

See, you're doing it now. when I request proof from guys like h1 it's because they've made a claim that is relevant to the debate. not because I'm triggered over an off-hand comment.

Come on fly, ur slipping man.

Here we have a confirmed lefty

"I'm rather left leaning, hence my support of Bernie." Silent

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16820575&highlight=userid%3A67348#post16820575

Spewing unproven claims and baseless accusations with no evidence, and refusing to back said claims with proof.

This is the stuff u live for. Why arent u all over silent like a fly on crap. Or a better way to phrase it would be. why arent u all over silent like a U on him?

Originally posted by Silent Master
See, you're doing it now. when I request proof from guys like h1 it's because they've made a claim that is relevant to the debate. not because I'm triggered over an off-hand comment. bs. u ask people to prove all sorts of claims, both relevant to the topic and irrelevant. U will harp on somethings no matter how irrelevant to the topic, then harass posters to battlezones for bans even after they've refused several times. Feel free to ask me for proof or examples and ill gladly provide them. As soon as u provide some for yours.

But u wont. You'll just tap dance around playing the "triggered" "ur mad" cards to once again distract from the fact thay u made a baseless claim with no proof and have yet to either back it up or take it back, another thing u hypocritically ask people to do all the time.

Im also still waiting for some proof to back up this retarded little doozy, which you've been ignoring for sometime, which is relevant to the debate.

"Why would a physician be talking about adpotion etc with a patient, that isn't their job. hospitals have counselors for that."

Wait let me guess, tap tap tap tap tap tap

Yes, when they're relevant to the debate. not when I'm triggered because of an off-hand comment.

Lol btw, dude confirmed he was not talking about "adoption" or any shit like that. He tried to walk it back and claim he was talking about babies with abnormalities and shit.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yes, when they're relevant to the debate. not when I'm triggered because of an off-hand comment. tap tap tappity tap. Ur on a roll, dont stop now.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Originally posted by Silent Master
Zzzzzzzzzzzz aww look at that. All that dancin tuckered the little guy out. Sleep well little buddy

Originally posted by Raptor22
aww look at that. All that dancin tuckered the little guy out. Sleep well little buddy S and M is a time waster troll and you were him down! Kudos.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
According to the Law. YES. That Is what is Now Legal in some states.
But don't worry. They will soon make Post Birth Abortions Legal Too.


TOLDYA!!!!!!!



Gov.Northam on his comments about Killing/Aborting Born Babies...

..and Other FUN STUFF!

VA Dem ADMITS She did not READ Abortion Bill She Supporeted. Sounds like our KMC Batch of Lefties..

At least one Person in State Gov Somewhere that DOES NOT endorse Murder.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
S and M is a time waster troll and you were him down! Kudos. its not that hes a time waster or troll. We have plenty of those. Its the fact that hes a bully. He always goes after the "weakest" members of the herd and harps on them relentlessly. Its not enough for him to prove hes right and have everyone else in the thread agree with him. It seems he feels the need to harass them into submission. He'll go 30-40 pgs dealing with others he calls troll and such. Yet usually after a page or 2 of me mocking his inability to make an argument or defend his stance he runs away like a beaten dog.

Originally posted by Raptor22
its not that hes a time waster or troll. We have plenty of those. Its the fact that hes a bully. He always goes after the "weakest" members of the herd and harps on them relentlessly. Its not enough for him to prove hes right and have everyone else in the thread agree with him. It seems he feels the need to harass them into submission. He'll go 30-40 pgs dealing with others he calls troll and such. Yet usually after a page or 2 of me mocking his inability to make an argument or defend his stance he runs away like a beaten dog. I've never seen S and M like that, I've just seen him as a guy with arguments he regurgitated that he doesn't really understand or shit posts "no but" stuff, he's easily triggered. None of the rightists here are really able to bully, most are pretty cowardly or just losers. They're also generally a bit thick. But Kudos mate.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I've never seen S and M like that, I've just seen him as a guy with arguments he regurgitated that he doesn't really understand or shit posts "no but" stuff, he's easily triggered. None of the rightists here are really able to bully, most are pretty cowardly or just losers. They're also generally a bit thick. But Kudos mate. thanks.

not so much here, in the movie vs forum is a different matter.

Others see it too, and he admits it openly

"Why do you bother debating him, it's like a giant taking candy from a baby, his arguments are nonsensical and dumb at best?" - Brolyblack

Silents response-

"This isn't really a debate, it's just me providing entertainment for the board by showing everyone how retarded h1's argument is."

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=658603&pagenumber=3

Thats just one of the many, many examples i could provide.

I have no respect for anyone who gets their entertainment out of intentionally embarrassing another in front of a group of people over and over. They will receive nothing but contempt, disdain and mockery from me.

WTF are you two whining about now?

Take your Fan Hate to its own thread. Sheesh.

https://manonthelam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/trash-bin-dustbin-bad-place-fail1-e1419115621268.jpg

Originally posted by Raptor22
Here we have a confirmed lefty

"I'm rather left leaning, hence my support of Bernie." Silent

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16820575&highlight=userid%3A67348#post16820575


Oh, that's interesting. Silent Master and I scored very similarly on the political compass test. I believe he was a bit more libertarian than I was, though. (I was -1, -2, I believe...and he was...-2, -4?)

Anyway, great find. I hope you didn't spend too much time finding that.


Back to your arguments: I don't want to get involved.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol btw, dude confirmed he was not talking about "adoption" or any shit like that. He tried to walk it back and claim he was talking about babies with abnormalities and shit.

Facts have never mattered to some people.

LOL! Same guy...

VA Governor Ralph Northam Admits He Was in Racist Yearbook Photo, Apologizes

Lol when he talked about snuffing out those kids, but keeping them comfortable first do you guys think that was a whites only policy?

Democrats when he talked about infanticide: meh

Democrats when a racist photo of the 80s shows up: RESIGN!

I don't have time to read several pages of this thread, but it's been reported a few times. Please stay on topic and keep the insults out of the thread.

As for me, aborting a viable baby is akin to human sacrifice. Drilling a hole in a viable baby's head is gruesome at the very least. Why kill a baby when adoption is a valid option? The women are already at the moment of birth, so it's not about having to go through a pregnancy.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Please stay on topic and keep personal attacks out of the posts.

what about cases where carrying to term would kill the mother?

the thought of someone just saying "nah" after months of pregnancy and having late-term abortion is sickening for all. it's universal, nobody wants that, except the occasional sock-troll character.

Originally posted by Robtard
"HORROR: New York Set To Legalize Abortion Up To Birth"

Retarded sensationalist headlines to draw in retarded sensationalist types who fall for clickbait and you retards fall for it every damn time. But that's what you get with your Alt-Right news. Anyhow.

Reality: This new law has the provision that a woman can late-term terminate if her life is at risk due to complications. Previously in NY the law only allowed up to 24 weeks if the mother's life was at risk.

How the **** did this thread reach 7 pages after this?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
How the **** did this thread reach 7 pages after this?

Well you see the governor of Georgia opened up his big f*cking mouth and made a comment about making the baby comfortable and then going to discuss with momma if they snuff it out. His excuse now is he meant just babies with abnormalities, etc.

Anyways, that's not abortion though lol. If the baby survives the birth and is made "comfortable" and then you snuff it out...it's not abortion. Period. Some can try to claim it's equivalent to taking a loved one off life support, but nah...abortion it ain't.

With all that said, looks like someone just took a suction tube and some forceps to Northams political career, zing!

https://i.imgur.com/q9LLpoe.jpg

Nothing to see here, just a guy dressed as a clan member and someone else apparently dressed as a coal miner.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what about cases where carrying to term would kill the mother?

the thought of someone just saying "nah" after months of pregnancy and having late-term abortion is sickening for all. it's universal, nobody wants that, except the occasional sock-troll character. Boy, that's very difficult. As an outside observer, I would want the baby to live. But if it's my wife that could die, I would falter. Regardless I would feel damned for thinking one way or another. I 100% believe it's the mother's choice to decide who survives.

As for rape and incest, I'm for the mother's decision. I couldn't even begin to understand the agony of having a baby growing inside me that came from violence. But there is still s small part of me who considers the baby innocent and has a right to live. But I would still 100% defer to the mother's decision.

pretty much on par with my own '40-foot pole' stance in terms of those contexts.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well you see the governor of Georgia opened up his big f*cking mouth and made a comment about making the baby comfortable and then going to discuss with momma if they snuff it out. His excuse now is he meant just babies with abnormalities, etc.

Anyways, that's not abortion though lol. If the baby survives the birth and is made "comfortable" and then you snuff it out...it's not abortion. Period. Some can try to claim it's equivalent to taking a loved one off life support, but nah...abortion it ain't.
What does that have to do with the proposed conditional late-term abortion law in New York?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
What does that have to do with the proposed conditional late-term abortion law in New York?

It was discussed here as well, I'm guessing so a separate thread didn't need to be created.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
pretty much on par with my own '40-foot pole' stance in terms of those contexts. Ha! That's a good policy.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
What does that have to do with the proposed conditional late-term abortion law in New York? There are 4 states considering extreme late term abortion. One of the governors talked about what to do after the baby was born, whether to abort or not. I've heard soundbites of the VA governor I believe. After the nuances of the bill were revealed, one of the VA sponsors backed out.

Anyways, can't most abnormalities be detected early on now? Just snuff the kids out early on.

Originally posted by Badabing
Ha! That's a good policy.

There are 4 states considering extreme late term abortion. One of the governors talked about what to do after the baby was born, whether to abort or not. I've heard soundbites of the VA governor I believe. After the nuances of the bill were revealed, one of the VA sponsors backed out.

Yep she admitted she didn't really read the bill lol.

Which is kinda disturbing.

Originally posted by Surtur
Anyways, can't most abnormalities be detected early on now? Just snuff the kids out early on. I know a lot can be detected. And they're on the edge of being able to correct most abnormalities. I think most will agree that abortion is mostly about convenience and birth control.Originally posted by Surtur
Yep she admitted she didn't really read the bill lol.

Which is kinda disturbing. Our government hard at work. dur

Originally posted by Badabing
Ha! That's a good policy.

There are 4 states considering extreme late term abortion. One of the governors talked about what to do after the baby was born, whether to abort or not. I've heard soundbites of the VA governor I believe. After the nuances of the bill were revealed, one of the VA sponsors backed out.
Is that governor also a physician, or an expert in birth and abortion processes? If not, then it sounds like a politician politicking while being clueless about that particular process, and not much more than a regretful poor choice of words.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'll never understand how some of these people who are pro choice are also in favor of charging someone with murder if they beat a pregnant woman so badly she miscarries.

Haven't heard that one, but then it wouldn't be the expecting mother's choice, would it?

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh and about my gun comment, lunatic leftists have spouted this "if it even saves one life yo!" logic when it comes to gun control(strangely this is never applied to illegal immigrants, weird!). You guys have utterly forfeited this stance. Why is this hard to get?

If stricter regulations on abortion safe even one life...amirite? Cuz abortions that are done due to health concerns to the mother are super rare.
The argument is that admitting immigrants will save far more lives (immigrant lives), and the risk to American lives is minimal.

Could be worse, we could have spent money studying the sexual habits of quails on cocaine...oh wait we did.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
The argument is that admitting immigrants will save far more lives (immigrant lives), and the risk to American lives is minimal.

Wouldn't Surtur's argument about stricter regulations on abortion result in saving far more lives(babies lives), with the risk to the mother's lives being minimal?

Originally posted by Badabing
Boy, that's very difficult. As an outside observer, I would want the baby to live. But if it's my wife that could die, I would falter. Regardless I would feel damned for thinking one way or another. I 100% believe it's the mother's choice to decide who survives.

As for rape and incest, I'm for the mother's decision. I couldn't even begin to understand the agony of having a baby growing inside me that came from violence. But there is still s small part of me who considers the baby innocent and has a right to live. But I would still 100% defer to the mother's decision.
I've been divorced and single for a couple of years now, but there would be no doubt in my mind that I would rather save the woman in my life than our unborn child.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Wouldn't Surtur's argument about stricter regulations on abortion result in saving far more lives(babies lives), with the risk to the mother's lives being minimal?
Yes, it would, except there's that pesky central issue of whether or not a woman has autonomy over her body, and the right to choose to either continue her pregnancy and give birth, or abort the pregnancy.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Yes, it would, except there's that pesky central issue of whether or not a woman has autonomy over her body, and the right to choose to continue her pregnancy and give birth or abort the pregnancy.

Kind of like that pesky central issue of the 2nd amendment.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Kind of like that pesky central issue of the 2nd amendment.
Non-sequiturs can be great, but leave them to the professionals.

Any other shit unrelated to the thread you'd like to add, before we move on?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Non-sequiturs can be great, but leave them to the professionals.

Any other shit unrelated to the thread you'd like to add, before we move on?

It's not a Non-sequitur, we were having a discussion about Surtur's comparison of the two positions. but if you can't answer. I'll drop it. don't want you to get upset.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I've been divorced and single for a couple of years now, but there would be no doubt in my mind that I would rather save the woman in my life than our unborn child. It would be one of the worst situations imaginable. Too bad we couldn't sacrifice Rob or Broly instead...mmm

Lol so the Virginia Governors nickname is college was "Coonman". I'm guessing he was in the black face.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's not a Non-sequitur, we were having a discussion about Surtur's comparison of the two positions. but if you can't answer. I'll drop it. don't want you to get upset.
Moronic arguments are upsetting, but I'll indulge you:

What the **** do gun ownership and restrictions have to do with birth and abortion?