Twister

Trump, Pence moving quickly on Supreme Court pick

420 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I suppose if the fetus was acting in self-defense, considering the imminent threat to his or her life, I could live with the fetus defending itself. You do believe in self-defense, right? OTOH, and as you know, I am opposed to the death penalty. See that's being consistent. I don't arbitrarily select criteria for ending life.

 

But since you're trying to ask a silly question,with no intent other than to be ridiculous, let me offer my own.

 

The USSC has arbitrarily determined that 26 weeks is the edge of viability, an arbitrary concept in itself.

 

So, since we're dealing in arbitrary concepts and numbers, we know that abortion is available on demand and as a result can be held for any reason, including, inconvenience and the assumption of a burden, do you support the killing of infants less than ten years old? I mean, they're not viable on their own, right? Maybe ten is too young a limit. How about 15, since they can't legally work before then? How about the old? They too may need help, you know, not independently viable, so what, 70? 73? Pick a number since it's arbitrary anyway. What about the mentally challenged? Is an IQ of 65 enough? 60? What is the limit of economic viability for you?

 

 

You know what isn't arbitrary? All human rights stem from the right to control one's body.

 

You know what else isn't arbitrary? You'd rationalize a psychotic dingbat sending this country down the sewer if it meant getting rid of legal abortion.

 

The sad fact is, there are better ways to limit abortion than by making it illegal. But pro-lifers are motivated by their desire to keep women second-class citizens. Three misogynist Trump is the perfect spokesman for you all.

 

Your morality is as shallow as your false equivalacies.

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what isn't arbitrary? All human rights stem from the right to control one's body.

You know what else isn't arbitrary? You'd rationalize a psychotic dingbat sending this country down the sewer if it meant getting rid of legal abortion.

The sad fact is, there are better ways to limit abortion than by making it illegal. But pro-lifers are motivated by their desire to keep women second-class citizens. Three misogynist Trump is the perfect spokesman for you all.

Your morality is as shallow as your false equivalacies.

My goodness, you're upset. You started this line child, if you're not willing to have it tossed back at you, perhaps you should try another approach.

 

The ability to control one's body is certainly a most basic right, but any right that basic extends to all - including the human fetus. Unless of course, it's only an arbitrary right, extended at political whim.

 

You keep trying and trying to paint with the Trump brush and it's just not working. I trust Trump's position on abortion to about the same degree I trust Clinton in internet security. Trump would bring back Warren Burger if he thought it would get him a vote.

 

And I agree with you, at least to the degree that there are other ways to reduce abortion and have advocated for them here; better birth control availability and education, to include abstinence, better coverage for health care for pregnant women, more help to parents looking to adopt and after adoption, education support for adopted children. The best way of course is to take the pressure off our kids to have sex at 13 years old, but that's a cultural change that would require bringing God back into society, so that won't happen soon.

 

Good to see you brought the second class woman meme again. Haven't seen it in a while and you need to use a tool to keep it effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians say all sorts of things, it's when they act, and with such hostility toward our democratic traditions and principles as the GOP has done here, and in many other ways, anyone who cares about those principles should be concerned.

 

Harry Reid acted with hostility toward democratic Senate traditions, but you were fine with that.  

 

How'd that work out for your failed party?

 

Justice Gorsuch will be such a fine addition to the Highest Court In The Land.  

 

And with RBG on the proverbial banana peel, another conservative nomination should be right around the corner, keeping the Court conservative (and Making America Great) for the next 20+ years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Reid acted with hostility toward democratic Senate traditions, but you were fine with that.  

 

How'd that work out for your failed party?

 

Justice Gorsuch will be such a fine addition to the Highest Court In The Land.  

 

And with RBG on the proverbial banana peel, another conservative nomination should be right around the corner, keeping the Court conservative (and Making America Great) for the next 20+ years.

 

 

LOL! The filibuster is hardly democratic. Indeed, it is anti-democratic, along with the fossil, the US senate.

 

The last thing you guys want is democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My goodness, you're upset. You started this line child, if you're not willing to have it tossed back at you, perhaps you should try another approach.

 

The ability to control one's body is certainly a most basic right, but any right that basic extends to all - including the human fetus. Unless of course, it's only an arbitrary right, extended at political whim.

 

You keep trying and trying to paint with the Trump brush and it's just not working. I trust Trump's position on abortion to about the same degree I trust Clinton in internet security. Trump would bring back Warren Burger if he thought it would get him a vote.

 

And I agree with you, at least to the degree that there are other ways to reduce abortion and have advocated for them here; better birth control availability and education, to include abstinence, better coverage for health care for pregnant women, more help to parents looking to adopt and after adoption, education support for adopted children. The best way of course is to take the pressure off our kids to have sex at 13 years old, but that's a cultural change that would require bringing God back into society, so that won't happen soon.

 

Good to see you brought the second class woman meme again. Haven't seen it in a while and you need to use a tool to keep it effective.

 

Again:

 

"The human being to which I refer is not the developing fetus, but the woman who carries the child. I well understand that many people believe that the fetus is a human being long before birth, with all the rights that attend to that designation. In the political context, I consider all such beliefs irrelevant, no matter how sincerely and deeply held. Only one ultimate point matters here: whether you think the developing fetus is a human being or not, the fetus is contained in and supported by the woman's body. If the woman's body did not exist, neither would the fetus. Only the woman's existence makes that of the fetus possible. The fetus only exists because of the woman's body -- not yours, not that of some possibly corrupt and stupid politician in Washington, and not the body of some possibly ignorant and venal politician in a state legislature. As I have watched this debate develop, and as I have considered with astonishment the increasingly byzantine efforts to " draw lines" about the point of viability, the time at which a full set of rights attaches to the fetus, and all the rest, I have become increasingly convinced that the right of the woman to control her own body when she is pregnant must be absolute up to the point of birth. All the attempts to craft legislation circumscribing that right prior to birth quickly become enmeshed in what are finally subjective claims that can be disputed into eternity, and impossible of proof in one direction or another.

 

...In terms of the political theory involved, the basic question is a stark and simple one: if you cannot control your own body, what other rights can you possibly have? If your body is not yours, what does it matter if you can freely express your political and religious convictions? The principle involved is similarly simple: as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, your right to control your own body is absolute. Period. For the reason indicated above, the fetus is not a person in the same sense the mother is: the fetus would not exist but for the woman who carries it. The woman's right to her own body must, in fact and in logic, take precedence over whatever rights you believe the fetus possesses, up to the time of birth.

 

...Our culture today views the body as inherently sinful; this belief is treated as an axiom beyond challenge. Sex is especially sinful -- and the final responsibility for the evil of sex and of the body is located in woman. Adam would not have sinned but for Eve's initial transgression. Evil is located in woman, and in her body and its potentialities. Such evil must be channeled and controlled: it must be brought under the whip of righteousness. The campaign to limit or even eliminate abortion is not about pregnancy or the fetus at all: it is about controlling the body, and controlling pleasure, especially sexual pleasure."

 

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/08/of-abortion-and-women-as-ultimate.html

 

The last part of this piece identifies so well the point you and others have expressed by suggesting that bearing a child is a form of punishment for the irresponsibility of women getting pregnant. Needless, to say, men bear no such responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again:

 

"The human being to which I refer is not the developing fetus, but the woman who carries the child. I well understand that many people believe that the fetus is a human being long before birth, with all the rights that attend to that designation. In the political context, I consider all such beliefs irrelevant, no matter how sincerely and deeply held. Only one ultimate point matters here: whether you think the developing fetus is a human being or not, the fetus is contained in and supported by the woman's body. If the woman's body did not exist, neither would the fetus. Only the woman's existence makes that of the fetus possible. The fetus only exists because of the woman's body -- not yours, not that of some possibly corrupt and stupid politician in Washington, and not the body of some possibly ignorant and venal politician in a state legislature. As I have watched this debate develop, and as I have considered with astonishment the increasingly byzantine efforts to " draw lines" about the point of viability, the time at which a full set of rights attaches to the fetus, and all the rest, I have become increasingly convinced that the right of the woman to control her own body when she is pregnant must be absolute up to the point of birth. All the attempts to craft legislation circumscribing that right prior to birth quickly become enmeshed in what are finally subjective claims that can be disputed into eternity, and impossible of proof in one direction or another.

 

...In terms of the political theory involved, the basic question is a stark and simple one: if you cannot control your own body, what other rights can you possibly have? If your body is not yours, what does it matter if you can freely express your political and religious convictions? The principle involved is similarly simple: as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, your right to control your own body is absolute. Period. For the reason indicated above, the fetus is not a person in the same sense the mother is: the fetus would not exist but for the woman who carries it. The woman's right to her own body must, in fact and in logic, take precedence over whatever rights you believe the fetus possesses, up to the time of birth.

 

...Our culture today views the body as inherently sinful; this belief is treated as an axiom beyond challenge. Sex is especially sinful -- and the final responsibility for the evil of sex and of the body is located in woman. Adam would not have sinned but for Eve's initial transgression. Evil is located in woman, and in her body and its potentialities. Such evil must be channeled and controlled: it must be brought under the whip of righteousness. The campaign to limit or even eliminate abortion is not about pregnancy or the fetus at all: it is about controlling the body, and controlling pleasure, especially sexual pleasure."

 

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/08/of-abortion-and-women-as-ultimate.html

 

The last part of this piece identifies so well the point you and others have expressed by suggesting that bearing a child is a form of punishment for the irresponsibility of women getting pregnant. Needless, to say, men bear no such responsibility.

Nice post. As meaningless as a fart in a hurricane, but nice post.

 

And the bolded part is just a flat out lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schumer can't be "Borked". If you're going to be snarky, don't be so lazy about it. That was sad.

 

Schumer is not being Borked, he would be the one doing the Borking. 

 

This whole nominating process has gotten sad as Gorsuch said.

 

Before Borking started, Gorsuch would have been confirmed without all the partisanship. He's shown he's an intelligent judge qualified for the position, which used to be what the process was about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post. As meaningless as a fart in a hurricane, but nice post.

 

And the bolded part is just a flat out lie.

hst throws out the same tired arguments and hopes they eventually stick. They are the equivalent of "Look, over here!" from my Tucker Carlson thread about language and how it can be used to distract people. It helps when babies are being murdered every day, which be supports, to keep the truth in plain view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post. As meaningless as a fart in a hurricane, but nice post.

 

And the bolded part is just a flat out lie.

 

 

You have a faulty memory. I have seen it, commented on it and you have responded to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schumer is not being Borked, he would be the one doing the Borking. 

 

This whole nominating process has gotten sad as Gorsuch said.

 

Before Borking started, Gorsuch would have been confirmed without all the partisanship. He's shown he's an intelligent judge qualified for the position, which used to be what the process was about.

 

Many of the ones who could vote against him voted for him the last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a faulty memory. I have seen it, commented on it and you have responded to it.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any less a lie. I have never suggested that bearing a child is a form of punishment. Never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do your remember Garland?

Garland who? ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the ones who could vote against him voted for him the last time.

 

Correct, wasn't that vote unanimous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schumer is not being Borked, he would be the one doing the Borking.

 

This whole nominating process has gotten sad as Gorsuch said.

 

Before Borking started, Gorsuch would have been confirmed without all the partisanship. He's shown he's an intelligent judge qualified for the position, which used to be what the process was about.

So was Garland. That didn't stop the GOP though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So was Garland. That didn't stop the GOP though.

Sometimes things just align.

 

Out of curiosity on what grounds can the dems credibly oppose gorsuch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So was Garland. That didn't stop the GOP though.

 

I don't disagree. It's a game both sides continue to escalate. Once political motivation was introduced into the process, this was inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes things just align.

 

Out of curiosity on what grounds can the dems credibly oppose gorsuch?

 

They don't have any grounds. They're just pissed with the way Garland was handled. I get that. 

 

If the roles were reversed, we would have the same arguments, just in the opposite direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have any grounds. They're just pissed with the way Garland was handled. I get that. 

 

If the roles were reversed, we would have the same arguments, just in the opposite direction. 

 

Yep like I've been saying, everything stays the same just the sides change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep like I've been saying, everything stays the same just the sides change.

 

Indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes things just align.

Out of curiosity on what grounds can the dems credibly oppose gorsuch?

Only GOP precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have any grounds. They're just pissed with the way Garland was handled. I get that. 

 

If the roles were reversed, we would have the same arguments, just in the opposite direction.

 

The roles aren't reversed. And what the Republicans have done in the Senate is just one example of many attacks on democratic institutions, such as their illegal gerrymandering, their gutting of the enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act and their attacks on voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The roles aren't reversed. And what the Republicans have done in the Senate is just one example of many attacks on democratic institutions, such as their illegal gerrymandering, their gutting of the enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act and their attacks on voting.

I keep hopingthat you don't actually believe the stuff you post, probably in some vain wish that you're acting as a parody of yourself, but I fear I am disappointed yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone cares, I have been watching the hearings and I like Gorsuch so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand people liking him because he is handsome.

 

He's a smug, shifty, evasive fellow though, either that or he doesn't know anything or have any opinions. Either way, not exactly Supreme Court material.

 

Plus, one of his more loathsome decisions got overturned unanimously while he was dodging questions. That just outright screams that he is unqualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now