Time zones in America

Any political discussion should go here. This subforum will be moderated differently than other forums.
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Message
Author
Carl Tuckerson
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:23 pm
Karma: 89

Re: Time zones in America

#41 Post by Carl Tuckerson » Sat May 18, 2019 1:14 am

Randomizer wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 12:48 am
It's a parasite living off the host. Would you defend a tapeworm's right to exist?

Would you let the government decide it could harvest your organs to save other people's lives? How much would you let the government decide to do with your body without your consent. After all it would be against the US constitution for the government to take your property (body) without monetary compensation by forcing you to keep a fetus inside you.
If you unironically have to refer to children as parasites and compare them to tapeworms to justify abortion, you have no business making public policy regarding children, and you might be a psychotic monster. Aren't you glad your parents didn't consider you a tapeworm?

None of these analogies even come close to hitting the mark. We already have precedent for the government deciding what you can do "with your body without your consent." What do you think a law is? We even have ample law on point: you can't voluntarily use your body to kill people. And if dependence on a parent is the line of demarcation for you, why don't you support infanticide after birth? Let me ask you where your line is--how long are you allowed to slaughter your own child because they're depending on you and you don't want that anymore? Because that's your position you're advocating right now.
1

peterlund
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Location: Sverige
Karma: 126
Contact:

Re: Time zones in America

#42 Post by peterlund » Sat May 18, 2019 5:53 am

Octavious wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:54 pm
I do get irritated by left wing supposed feminists...
Thank you for the compliment! I am relieved to be labelled "left wing" by you. Anything else would certainly have been disastrous!

flash2015
Posts: 1418
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 292

Re: Time zones in America

#43 Post by flash2015 » Sat May 18, 2019 1:00 pm

Carl Tuckerson wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 1:14 am
Randomizer wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 12:48 am
It's a parasite living off the host. Would you defend a tapeworm's right to exist?

Would you let the government decide it could harvest your organs to save other people's lives? How much would you let the government decide to do with your body without your consent. After all it would be against the US constitution for the government to take your property (body) without monetary compensation by forcing you to keep a fetus inside you.
If you unironically have to refer to children as parasites and compare them to tapeworms to justify abortion, you have no business making public policy regarding children, and you might be a psychotic monster. Aren't you glad your parents didn't consider you a tapeworm?

None of these analogies even come close to hitting the mark. We already have precedent for the government deciding what you can do "with your body without your consent." What do you think a law is? We even have ample law on point: you can't voluntarily use your body to kill people. And if dependence on a parent is the line of demarcation for you, why don't you support infanticide after birth? Let me ask you where your line is--how long are you allowed to slaughter your own child because they're depending on you and you don't want that anymore? Because that's your position you're advocating right now.
So **every** fetus is a child then? Every time a woman miscarries we should create a death certificate and have a funeral? Or taking it to the logical extreme, every time a sexually active female has a period we should create a death certificate just in case? Perhaps the menstrual blood should be stored for investigation? What do you think?

Not to be rude but getting increasingly emotive about the issue doesn't make your opinion (and it is only an opinion) any more valid. If anyone should be kept away from public policy I would argue it would be those that demonize any opinions which disagree with their own. Democracy is about compromises between competing interests. Ideological absolutism leads to tyranny.
2

Carl Tuckerson
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:23 pm
Karma: 89

Re: Time zones in America

#44 Post by Carl Tuckerson » Sat May 18, 2019 5:49 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 1:00 pm
Carl Tuckerson wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 1:14 am
Randomizer wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 12:48 am
It's a parasite living off the host. Would you defend a tapeworm's right to exist?

Would you let the government decide it could harvest your organs to save other people's lives? How much would you let the government decide to do with your body without your consent. After all it would be against the US constitution for the government to take your property (body) without monetary compensation by forcing you to keep a fetus inside you.
If you unironically have to refer to children as parasites and compare them to tapeworms to justify abortion, you have no business making public policy regarding children, and you might be a psychotic monster. Aren't you glad your parents didn't consider you a tapeworm?

None of these analogies even come close to hitting the mark. We already have precedent for the government deciding what you can do "with your body without your consent." What do you think a law is? We even have ample law on point: you can't voluntarily use your body to kill people. And if dependence on a parent is the line of demarcation for you, why don't you support infanticide after birth? Let me ask you where your line is--how long are you allowed to slaughter your own child because they're depending on you and you don't want that anymore? Because that's your position you're advocating right now.
So **every** fetus is a child then? Every time a woman miscarries we should create a death certificate and have a funeral? Or taking it to the logical extreme, every time a sexually active female has a period we should create a death certificate just in case? Perhaps the menstrual blood should be stored for investigation? What do you think?

Not to be rude but getting increasingly emotive about the issue doesn't make your opinion (and it is only an opinion) any more valid. If anyone should be kept away from public policy I would argue it would be those that demonize any opinions which disagree with their own. Democracy is about compromises between competing interests. Ideological absolutism leads to tyranny.
Strictly speaking yes, every fetus is a child, and we have clearly recognized that a fetus has a legally protected right to life even when we wouldn't otherwise treat a fetus like a child already born. If a woman miscarries in her seventh month of pregnancy, we obviously don't give the fetus a funeral, but if that same woman is criminally resulted and the death of the fetus results, the criminal is responsible for homicide; and if such a woman is killed herself then the killer is liable for homicide twice. That we don't have a tradition of holding funerals for some people doesn't mean they don't have a right to life that should be protected.

I'm not being "increasingly emotive." Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being. It is murder in the colloquial sense of the term. It is infanticide. There may be circumstances where it is appropriate nonetheless, but the debate has to start from that frame. Casually referring to children as parasites and tapeworms, as the person I quoted did, is reprehensible, and you are wrong for trying to bludgeon my condemnation of such language by calling for compromise. People who show that much disdain for the life of children do not belong in the public policy discussion on their fate. That should not be controversial. That doesn't mean everyone who supports abortion rights doesn't.

As for compromise... how can there be compromise that results in widespread abortion access? One side sees it as murder, and the other side never does anything to address this concern. I can think of several ways that one can compromise on this issue that permits women to have ample control over their reproductive health and bodily autonomy that does not result in widespread abortion access:

1. Don't have sex without protection
2. Use condoms, birth control medication, IUDs or other procedures or devices to inhibit pregnancy, then have sex as you please
3. Permit abortion where there is a danger to the life of the mother, or in cases where she didn't choose to have sex (exceptions for rape, which Alabama notably doesn't include)

That's a compromise that would be very reasonable. You don't terminate the life of a child unless it is absolutely necessary and you emphasize the means of having sex that don't result in pregnancy or, God forbid, just abstain from sex in an instance where you can't have unprotected sex and there's an unwanted risk of pregnancy. It's really not that big a deal to decline sex where you can't afford the risk of pregnancy.
The tough part is that there's a real gap where the woman didn't decline sex (i.e. exceptions for rape and incest which are typically included in all these laws, but which Alabama doesn't), but:

1. Numbers vary on the reasons given for seeking abortions, but the most-cited figure I could find places the number sought for rape cases at roughly 1%. Based on current data, these cases are an extremely small proportion of abortions sought; the vast majority are properly addressed even if you think that an exception for rape is proper and Alabama is wrong in this respect.
2. It is a perfectly valid moral position to hold that even though the woman is obviously blameless in the circumstances leading to her pregnancy, the harm caused by killing her child is greater than that caused by forcing her to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape to term. I don't agree with this take and consequently I think Alabama is wrong to ban abortion in the case of rape, but I think it's a valid position for someone to take.

In any case, we can have a conversation about those issues and come to a position that respects the life interest of the child and the interests of the woman.

You know where we can't have such a conversation? When people lead off by calling those who disagree with them "barbaric" and "medieval" and refer to children as "parasites" and "tapeworms." It's very strange that you chose to single out my correct reference to the procedure as infanticide for being too "emotive" while ignoring these comments.
1

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 848
Contact:

Re: Time zones in America

#45 Post by Jamiet99uk » Sun May 19, 2019 7:10 am

You know what? The most revealing part of the sick, medieval Alabama abortion law is that the personhood of the sacred little embryo DOES NOT APPLY to embryos in fertility clinics. There are several fertility clinics in the state of Alabama, each of which is full of embryos, created deliberately, yet in the knowledge that the vast majority will never be born.

But Alabama's lawmakers are perfectly OK with that because..... THERE IS NO WOMAN'S BODY TO CONTROL. And they have ADMITTED this.

Senator Clyde Chambliss, the Republican sponsor of the bill, said specifically that his law was not intended to prohibit the destruction of fertilised eggs used for in-vitro fertilisation, only those conceived within a woman's body.

"The egg in the lab doesn't apply," he said. "It's not in a woman; she's not pregnant."

So there you go. It's not really about the "baby". It's not really about the embryo. IT'S ABOUT CONTROLLING WOMEN'S BODIES. And that is why this evil shit must be opposed.
1

flash2015
Posts: 1418
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 292

Re: Time zones in America

#46 Post by flash2015 » Sun May 19, 2019 4:03 pm

Carl Tuckerson wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 5:49 pm
Strictly speaking yes, every fetus is a child, and we have clearly recognized that a fetus has a legally protected right to life even when we wouldn't otherwise treat a fetus like a child already born. If a woman miscarries in her seventh month of pregnancy, we obviously don't give the fetus a funeral, but if that same woman is criminally resulted and the death of the fetus results, the criminal is responsible for homicide; and if such a woman is killed herself then the killer is liable for homicide twice. That we don't have a tradition of holding funerals for some people doesn't mean they don't have a right to life that should be protected.
It either is a child with all the rights associated with being a child or it isn't. One of the main argument for saying all abortion **from conception** is wrong argues that there can be no arbitrary lines drawn differentiating a child from a fetus. But we already do and you are stating above that those arbitrary lines are "obviously" right so that anti-abortion argument really doesn't hold water.

And to be pedantic in this specific case you got the date wrong. After the "arbitrary" 24 weeks a stillborn baby must be given a funeral:

https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-inform ... lborn-baby
I'm not being "increasingly emotive." Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being. It is murder in the colloquial sense of the term. It is infanticide. There may be circumstances where it is appropriate nonetheless, but the debate has to start from that frame. Casually referring to children as parasites and tapeworms, as the person I quoted did, is reprehensible, and you are wrong for trying to bludgeon my condemnation of such language by calling for compromise. People who show that much disdain for the life of children do not belong in the public policy discussion on their fate. That should not be controversial. That doesn't mean everyone who supports abortion rights doesn't.
Of course you are being increasingly emotive. You are arguing essentially "this is my arbitrary definition" and everyone who doesn't agree with me is evil and should be barred from public office. You could have instead argued it out with Randomizer. Just because he made the argument in a flippant way doesn't mean he is wrong. Going to the CDC website "A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host". So Randomizer is technically correct here. This absolute dependence on the mother's body for its very survival differentiates the fetus from the child. Given the absolute dependence the mother should probably have some choice in the matter...irrespective of our personal beliefs on whether we believe that she must carry it to term.
As for compromise... how can there be compromise that results in widespread abortion access? One side sees it as murder, and the other side never does anything to address this concern. I can think of several ways that one can compromise on this issue that permits women to have ample control over their reproductive health and bodily autonomy that does not result in widespread abortion access:

1. Don't have sex without protection
2. Use condoms, birth control medication, IUDs or other procedures or devices to inhibit pregnancy, then have sex as you please
3. Permit abortion where there is a danger to the life of the mother, or in cases where she didn't choose to have sex (exceptions for rape, which Alabama notably doesn't include)

That's a compromise that would be very reasonable. You don't terminate the life of a child unless it is absolutely necessary and you emphasize the means of having sex that don't result in pregnancy or, God forbid, just abstain from sex in an instance where you can't have unprotected sex and there's an unwanted risk of pregnancy. It's really not that big a deal to decline sex where you can't afford the risk of pregnancy.
And pigs will fly. That isn't a compromise. I was hoping you could potentially say six weeks (i.e. "the heartbeat bill")...then all we are arguing about is dates. But instead you just reiterating your hardened position which will get us nowhere. Much of the world disagrees with this position and that is unlikely to change no matter how emotive and impassioned the pro-life movement gets. Again a fetus != child and that is recognized in law the world over...saying otherwise does not make it any less true.

I think you are losing sight of the real goal. Is the goal to put people in gaol for administering abortions or having abortions...or is the goal to actually reduce the incidence of abortion? If your goal is to take action to reduce the incidence of abortion rather than criminalizing it I believe most people would get on board with this. Making something illegal often makes its problems worse rather than better (see prohibition or the "war on drugs").

You talk about contraception as a solution but the largest most vocal parts of the anti-abortion movement (the Catholic church) are against this. We are already allowing pharmacists in some states (in the name of "religious freedom" which is the freedom to restrict the freedoms of others) to be able to individually decide whether women have access to hormonal birth control depending on whether they thing the women will or are being sexually promiscuous...which I would argue if you have any moral qualms about fulfilling your job responsibilities perhaps you should choose a different profession. Understandably by many people any legal abortion restrictions are seen as "the thin edge of the wedge". We know the six weeks thing is a specific legal construct to change definitions in Roe vs Wade (Roe vs Wade currently restricts states on abortion before the point of viability). We know this is only the next legal step in trying to achieve a complete abortion ban...and potentially bans on contraception too at some later point.
The tough part is that there's a real gap where the woman didn't decline sex (i.e. exceptions for rape and incest which are typically included in all these laws, but which Alabama doesn't), but:

1. Numbers vary on the reasons given for seeking abortions, but the most-cited figure I could find places the number sought for rape cases at roughly 1%. Based on current data, these cases are an extremely small proportion of abortions sought; the vast majority are properly addressed even if you think that an exception for rape is proper and Alabama is wrong in this respect.
2. It is a perfectly valid moral position to hold that even though the woman is obviously blameless in the circumstances leading to her pregnancy, the harm caused by killing her child is greater than that caused by forcing her to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape to term. I don't agree with this take and consequently I think Alabama is wrong to ban abortion in the case of rape, but I think it's a valid position for someone to take.

In any case, we can have a conversation about those issues and come to a position that respects the life interest of the child and the interests of the woman.

You know where we can't have such a conversation? When people lead off by calling those who disagree with them "barbaric" and "medieval" and refer to children as "parasites" and "tapeworms." It's very strange that you chose to single out my correct reference to the procedure as infanticide for being too "emotive" while ignoring these comments.
I agree that whether you believe life begins at conception in all circumstances or whether you believe there can be some exceptions in the case of rape that are both valid moral positions. I can also see that it is a valid moral position to believe that many other things which are abundant in society are wrong too, whether it is eating beef...or whether eating all meat is wrong, whether infidelity is wrong or perhaps whether excessive gambling is wrong etc. etc. The question is - when can you use the power of the state to force your moral beliefs on others? Again since this is a decision between a woman and her doctor and since a fetus != child, it just doesn't concern you so I would argue no.

I agree that on its own it is wrong to call restrictions on abortion barbaric/medieval. However I think it is fine to call excessive punishments that. I, for example, would call the potential 99 year imprisonment of a doctor for performing an abortion "barbaric"...because IMHO it is. And I think you vastly overreacted to the "parasite" thing. Whilst an inelegant argument, the fetus meets the very definition of the word parasite defined in medical texts. I think the latest anti-abortion argument is that opposition to abortion is based on "science" but if that is the case you can't then ignore the science you don't personally agree with.
1

flash2015
Posts: 1418
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 292

Re: Time zones in America

#47 Post by flash2015 » Sun May 19, 2019 6:01 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 7:10 am
You know what? The most revealing part of the sick, medieval Alabama abortion law is that the personhood of the sacred little embryo DOES NOT APPLY to embryos in fertility clinics. There are several fertility clinics in the state of Alabama, each of which is full of embryos, created deliberately, yet in the knowledge that the vast majority will never be born.

But Alabama's lawmakers are perfectly OK with that because..... THERE IS NO WOMAN'S BODY TO CONTROL. And they have ADMITTED this.

Senator Clyde Chambliss, the Republican sponsor of the bill, said specifically that his law was not intended to prohibit the destruction of fertilised eggs used for in-vitro fertilisation, only those conceived within a woman's body.

"The egg in the lab doesn't apply," he said. "It's not in a woman; she's not pregnant."

So there you go. It's not really about the "baby". It's not really about the embryo. IT'S ABOUT CONTROLLING WOMEN'S BODIES. And that is why this evil shit must be opposed.
To be fair here, many anti-abortion activists also believe in-vitro fertilization is wrong too. That there is a contradiction here by lawmakers is probably a GOOD thing. I don't want them to try and ban that too.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 848
Contact:

Re: Time zones in America

#48 Post by Jamiet99uk » Mon May 20, 2019 2:24 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 6:01 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 7:10 am

So there you go. It's not really about the "baby". It's not really about the embryo. IT'S ABOUT CONTROLLING WOMEN'S BODIES. And that is why this evil shit must be opposed.
To be fair here, many anti-abortion activists also believe in-vitro fertilization is wrong too. That there is a contradiction here by lawmakers is probably a GOOD thing. I don't want them to try and ban that too.
Yeah, but my point here is that Alabama's lawmakers are hypocrites who clearly do not care about saving the life of every foetus - their principal aim is to police and control women's bodies because patriarchy.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 848
Contact:

Re: Time zones in America

#49 Post by Jamiet99uk » Mon May 20, 2019 4:08 pm

Over in Oklahoma in 2017, you had this deeply evil shit saying women are merely "hosts" for foetuses, with no right to bodily autonomy.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressi ... dw9TqJTS1k

Seriously fucked up evil shit.

Senlac
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 114

Re: Time zones in America

#50 Post by Senlac » Mon May 20, 2019 6:41 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 2:24 pm
flash2015 wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 6:01 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 7:10 am

So there you go. It's not really about the "baby". It's not really about the embryo. IT'S ABOUT CONTROLLING WOMEN'S BODIES. And that is why this evil shit must be opposed.
To be fair here, many anti-abortion activists also believe in-vitro fertilization is wrong too. That there is a contradiction here by lawmakers is probably a GOOD thing. I don't want them to try and ban that too.
Yeah, but my point here is that Alabama's lawmakers are hypocrites who clearly do not care about saving the life of every foetus - their principal aim is to police and control women's bodies because patriarchy.
Just to bring a touch of reality to this debate I doubt the above is anywhere close to “their principal aim”. Remember we are talking about politicians here & they only ever have one “principal aim”, re-election.
I don’t know Alabama but if the majority of the electorate object to the abortion laws as they stand (most probably) then the first principle of a democracy is that the legislature has to act to correct the discrepancy, otherwise a different legislature will do so for them, after the next election.
I know this issue is always discussed on a “fundamental human rights” type basis, but it never works because it’s so confrontational & no one ever agrees. It has to be resolved on the democratic consensus & the losers must live with the outcome. That’s the way Western societies work, for good or ill.

Randomizer
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:04 am
Karma: 67

Re: Time zones in America

#51 Post by Randomizer » Mon May 20, 2019 9:09 pm

Meanwhile since the Alabama and now Missouri laws have no rape exemptions, rapists will have an additional protection that their victims lack of parental rights:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rapis ... d-support/
1

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 848
Contact:

Re: Time zones in America

#52 Post by Jamiet99uk » Mon May 20, 2019 9:16 pm

Senlac wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 6:41 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 2:24 pm
flash2015 wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 6:01 pm


To be fair here, many anti-abortion activists also believe in-vitro fertilization is wrong too. That there is a contradiction here by lawmakers is probably a GOOD thing. I don't want them to try and ban that too.
Yeah, but my point here is that Alabama's lawmakers are hypocrites who clearly do not care about saving the life of every foetus - their principal aim is to police and control women's bodies because patriarchy.
Just to bring a touch of reality to this debate I doubt the above is anywhere close to “their principal aim”. Remember we are talking about politicians here & they only ever have one “principal aim”, re-election.
I don’t know Alabama but if the majority of the electorate object to the abortion laws as they stand (most probably) then the first principle of a democracy is that the legislature has to act to correct the discrepancy, otherwise a different legislature will do so for them, after the next election.
I know this issue is always discussed on a “fundamental human rights” type basis, but it never works because it’s so confrontational & no one ever agrees. It has to be resolved on the democratic consensus & the losers must live with the outcome. That’s the way Western societies work, for good or ill.
No. No, becuase they get the votes by saying "abortion is bad, fuh fuh fuh, it makes Jesus cry, a vote for me is the vote the Bible told you to cast", but most of their voters don't read the small print. I bet you a large number of Republican voters in Alabama didn't pore over the details of the debate and didn't consider the hypocrisy of the Alamaba Republicans' position on foetuses in IVF clinics. Democracy in most Western countries is a sick joke.

Senlac
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 114

Re: Time zones in America

#53 Post by Senlac » Mon May 20, 2019 9:24 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 9:16 pm
Senlac wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 6:41 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 2:24 pm


Yeah, but my point here is that Alabama's lawmakers are hypocrites who clearly do not care about saving the life of every foetus - their principal aim is to police and control women's bodies because patriarchy.
Just to bring a touch of reality to this debate I doubt the above is anywhere close to “their principal aim”. Remember we are talking about politicians here & they only ever have one “principal aim”, re-election.
I don’t know Alabama but if the majority of the electorate object to the abortion laws as they stand (most probably) then the first principle of a democracy is that the legislature has to act to correct the discrepancy, otherwise a different legislature will do so for them, after the next election.
I know this issue is always discussed on a “fundamental human rights” type basis, but it never works because it’s so confrontational & no one ever agrees. It has to be resolved on the democratic consensus & the losers must live with the outcome. That’s the way Western societies work, for good or ill.
No. No, becuase they get the votes by saying "abortion is bad, fuh fuh fuh, it makes Jesus cry, a vote for me is the vote the Bible told you to cast", but most of their voters don't read the small print. I bet you a large number of Republican voters in Alabama didn't pore over the details of the debate and didn't consider the hypocrisy of the Alamaba Republicans' position on foetuses in IVF clinics. Democracy in most Western countries is a sick joke.
Yep, it’s a very sick joke in my opinion too, but we have not managed anything better in most cases. What you say about voter ignorance is very plausible, but again makes no difference. It is what it is.
We don’t live in utopias, there are decision making systems in place (sometimes very old ones) & we use them. Don’t like a particular outcome? Tough, if the majority does, live with it & move on.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 848
Contact:

Re: Time zones in America

#54 Post by Jamiet99uk » Mon May 20, 2019 10:47 pm

No, Senlac. Not when the outcome is women being controlled and oppressed by fascists. I can't "accept that" and "move on" and it's sick that you think people should. When a cause is just and worthwhile, what you do is you keep fighting.

Senlac
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 114

Re: Time zones in America

#55 Post by Senlac » Mon May 20, 2019 11:32 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 10:47 pm
No, Senlac. Not when the outcome is women being controlled and oppressed by fascists. I can't "accept that" and "move on" and it's sick that you think people should. When a cause is just and worthwhile, what you do is you keep fighting.
Fair enough. I’m too old to “fight” for causes now. I’ll make the case...
Democracy as usually implemented stinks in most countries.
Environmental damage to the world at the current rate is unacceptable.
There are circumstances (not all) when I personally believe abortion justified.

I’ll happily give a reasoned argument for all premises I believe, but fight the cause, no more. I found as a young person it only lead to frustration & never victory. I always moved on.
Applied & got residency 4 times in different countries since leaving UK. The reason was always a different version of “the current way of society is unacceptable to me”. I can’t change it, I’ll leave. Excessive Restrictions, or Violence, total banality, you name it, I’ve hated it & left it.
However if you prefer to stay and fight, I do wish you all the luck in the world, Best Regards Senlac

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 848
Contact:

Re: Time zones in America

#56 Post by Jamiet99uk » Tue May 21, 2019 8:01 am

In more news from evil shithole America, this week the Republican controlled Idaho Congress voted 39-28 to PRESERVE state laws allowing child marriages.

Yep, right wing paedophilia is alive and well in Idaho.

flash2015
Posts: 1418
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 292

Re: Time zones in America

#57 Post by flash2015 » Tue May 21, 2019 1:50 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 8:01 am
In more news from evil shithole America, this week the Republican controlled Idaho Congress voted 39-28 to PRESERVE state laws allowing child marriages.

Yep, right wing paedophilia is alive and well in Idaho.
I didn't know this! I had to look it up. It though isn't about paedophilia. It is about teenage pregnancy. Idaho Republicans believe that the right of the unborn child to be brought up by a married couple trump any rights of the pregnant child which could be as young as 10 or 11:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfe ... riage.html

It is amazing the cognitive dissonance that some lawmakers show:

“I do not think courts should be involved in marriage at all,” said Bryan Zollinger, R-Idaho Falls. “I don’t believe there should be a license required to get married. I think two willing people should be able to go and get married.”

Does he not know that the recognition of marriage by the state IS a legal construct?

Having said that, whilst I don't believe this policy is right, I don't believe we achieve anything by branding those that do agree with it evil then lumping half the population of the US in with these people via guilt by association. Whilst it may be very satisfying to do that, I don't believe it is helpful in changing anyone's opinion...if anything it hardens those opinions and makes it harder to get these things changed.
1

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 848
Contact:

Re: Time zones in America

#58 Post by Jamiet99uk » Tue May 21, 2019 4:23 pm

Flash, it's absolutely about paedophilia. Any grown man who impregnates a 10 year old girl is a paedophile. Any lawmaker who thinks that allowing that man to marry the 10 year old girl he impregnates is evil, and a supporter of paedophiles.

And to bring in Senlac's view on this issue: YAY DEMOCRACY! CHILD MARRIAGES, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

Hooray for creepy uncle Cletus and his democratically-defended right to impregnate and marry his 10-year old niece.

Fucking sick.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 848
Contact:

Re: Time zones in America

#59 Post by Jamiet99uk » Tue May 21, 2019 4:26 pm

Is Congressman Zollinger proposing to abolish marriage licences altogether?

No he is not.

His only priority here was to defend the rights of paedophiles. Sick and evil.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 4863
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 848
Contact:

Re: Time zones in America

#60 Post by Jamiet99uk » Tue May 21, 2019 6:08 pm

But clearly all of this is not only democracy in action, but the will of the LORD.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest