Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Have you seen God do an abortion?
Blunt facts, not EDITED LANGUAGE
- Thread starter unbound
- Start date
Yet flaying foreskins is your forte...
'No' then
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
If you could identify a woman, then if you arent interested in the rights of the unborn AS WELL, don't assume others will be interested in the woman, but we are and you cant identify a woman.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
In Massachusetts in the '40s and '50s exactly the reverse was true.
Temujin
Well-known member
Indeed. The golden age of misogyny and bigotry. No wonder some wish to return to these values.
but no worse than the present age of mentally retarded lunacy.
Yes it does.
Let me split it into two parts.
1. If you cant address the rights of the unborn as well as the woman, dont expect just to propose the rights of the woman... we aint listening to bigotry and prejudice.
2. You cant identify a woman properly so we need to clarify that before we can understand what you are trying to say to us
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Oh, I see. You're trying to bring in one of your strawmen from an unrelated thread as if it makes the slightest difference to what's being discussed in this thread. And here I was foolishly thinking you might discuss honestly!
And in the one part of the post that actually addresses the topic of this thread, you - strawman again - invent falsehoods about 'bigotry' and 'prejudice'.
So you dont see. Your post is the strawman. Your position
Point 2 is not a strawman but rather you using the pretext to avoid it being exposed as a falsehood.
And you havent addressed my first point.
What rights are you imagining? The right which I would agree that if woman is in danger from the pregnancy then the rights of the woman are indeed paramount, or the right of a woman to kill her offspring before 12 weeks or the right of the woman to kill her offspring before 24 weeks?
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
You don't know what 'strawman' means. A person's position cannot be a strawman.
Point 2 is unrelated to the thread.
You had a point? I must have lost track of it among all your made up nonsense.
The rights to privacy and bodily autonomy - rights that everybody (even a conservative) agrees to and depends upon - except when they feel like ignoring them for women. I know you, as a conservative, couldn't care less about anybody else's rights, but many of us think they are important.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
In the absence of a god, we take the mother's will to be paramount.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Them were the days, when you didn't have to worry about a black person using the same water fountain as you...
What do you mean by 'mother'. You understand that a mother can only be a female adult woman?
We need to know what you mean by mother before we can know whose will it you are referring to.
Depends what you mean by black person. Do you mean people who have black skin colour or people who identify as black?
Also what do you mean by 'people'? Do you mean human beings or do you inclyde human beings who identify as dogs like I showed you on that link to the lgbt Met Police?