Repug Congressman blames abortion for school shootings LOL!

Damaged Eagle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I've decided to believe the right to life should rely on self-reliance... unless your parents or someone decides to sustain you.

Some see life beginning at conception... some at the first trimester... some at the second... some at the checkout desk.

If this is going to be a subjective argument... I guess I'll just go with when a person can sustain themselves unless they receive the willing charity of another person. Y'all can pretend that a nanny state is a sustainable model... but history and reality say otherwise.

I only say that abortion should be limited to the first trimester because there are women who will want an abortion. This is a concession. I know enough about the psychology of developing fetuses to know there's much more going on than simple cell dividing after a certain stage in the fetuses development. Therefore my stance is that the sooner the woman has it done the better and she'd best make up her mind quick.

My philosophy however is that it's alive the day it was conceived.

My beliefs and therefore it drives my stance and the reason for saying it best be done quickly.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

If those legs are blown off by a B52 carpet bombing then there's nothing insane about that though ...Right ?

Damaged Eagle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:
In the same vein... why are we responsible for extending/supporting the useless? I don't mind helping the truly needy... but why support the inept? Bad ideas fail... right? If we are talking sensibilities here... lets get down to the brass tacks. If you want to live off the kindness of others... you don't do it through the force of the federal government of the united states of america. That isn't charity.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JynwVKXzc9s

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:
I have no reason to torture an animal just because it's insane.

Well admittedly this is the one thing where I differ with you and conservatives and liberals and just about every one else. And I realize none of you will ever come over to my side on it.

But I just don't much care about "insanity" when the insane butcher innocent people.
As long as the insane are hole up in their own little world I have no problem with them. But once they come into the civilized world and start shooting babies and shooting people in a movie theater and blowing people's legs off on a public street, then I honest to god do not give one goddamn shit about their insanity being any excuse. I believe in an an eye for an eye and that goes for the sane, the insane, lepers, hunchbacks, rich people, poor people, queers, or any other category. Even those who come from a deprived childhood. I want their eye just as much as the next one.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I was just checking Bob...I mean let's say an insane politician tells an insane General to destroy an innocent country...ARE ALL the people in the planes, ships and rollin tanks insane also ?

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:
I only say that abortion should be limited to the first trimester

Works for me. See it's not that hard to find compromise on this and that one should be all that's needed.

And then we can dispense with all the extremism to the left and to the right. And we can do away with those goddamn labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

Congratulations. You've just begun a new movement. One that has no labels and no extremist ideology and no media bloviators bloviating at the tops of their voices. And no kooks trying to tie us to school shootings.

Let's just call it common sense and stop with that.

Bob wrote:for teo.

But since General Butler is most certainly one of my heroes, and since he walked the walk before talking the talk (like you did), and I didn't do that, I'll defer to you and him on this one. How's that?

PkrBum wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I've decided to believe the right to life should rely on self-reliance... unless your parents or someone decides to sustain you.

Some see life beginning at conception... some at the first trimester... some at the second... some at the checkout desk.

If this is going to be a subjective argument... I guess I'll just go with when a person can sustain themselves unless they receive the willing charity of another person. Y'all can pretend that a nanny state is a sustainable model... but history and reality say otherwise.

I only say that abortion should be limited to the first trimester because there are women who will want an abortion. This is a concession. I know enough about the psychology of developing fetuses to know there's much more going on than simple cell dividing after a certain stage in the fetuses development. Therefore my stance is that the sooner the woman has it done the better and she'd best make up her mind quick.

My philosophy however is that it's alive the day it was conceived.

My beliefs and therefore it drives my stance and the reason for saying it best be done quickly.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

I certainly respect your point of view de... and I share your scientific analysis... but I don't wish to draw any time line for the purposes of this argument. The funny thing is that I don't have any strong feelings on this subject... lol. I just don't wish to relinquish a contradiction... why is a life disposable at on point and not another? Surely we know there have been others that have made those decisions... right? Even God?

What is so damn bad about natural selection? It's better to pick and choose?

Disclaimer: None of the opinions expressed above necessarily reflect my own thgjts or the thgjts of those that control my thgjts.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I've decided to believe the right to life should rely on self-reliance... unless your parents or someone decides to sustain you.

Some see life beginning at conception... some at the first trimester... some at the second... some at the checkout desk.

If this is going to be a subjective argument... I guess I'll just go with when a person can sustain themselves unless they receive the willing charity of another person. Y'all can pretend that a nanny state is a sustainable model... but history and reality say otherwise.

I only say that abortion should be limited to the first trimester because there are women who will want an abortion. This is a concession. I know enough about the psychology of developing fetuses to know there's much more going on than simple cell dividing after a certain stage in the fetuses development. Therefore my stance is that the sooner the woman has it done the better and she'd best make up her mind quick.

My philosophy however is that it's alive the day it was conceived.

My beliefs and therefore it drives my stance and the reason for saying it best be done quickly.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

I certainly respect your point of view de... and I share your scientific analysis... but I don't wish to draw any time line for the purposes of this argument. The funny thing is that I don't have any strong feelings on this subject... lol. I just don't wish to relinquish a contradiction... why is a life disposable at on point and not another? Surely we know there have been others that have made those decisions... right? Even God?

What is so damn bad about natural selection? It's better to pick and choose?

Disclaimer: None of the opinions expressed above necessarily reflect my own thgjts or the thgjts of those that control my thgjts.

In answer to your multiple questions...

Because the will of the people demand that a concession be made.

Therefore a law that displeases both sides needs be made.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuZsSsyQ-M



By the way... In reference to your disclaimer..... How many people are in there?

PkrBum wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:
By the way... In reference to your disclaimer..... How many people are in there?

I was hoping you would look and see... It's freaking me out maaaan.