Oldbear83 said:
So BBL has abandoned reasoned discussion in favor of bitter rancor ...
Ah well, the subject has always been difficult to discuss,
What?
Oldbear83 said:
So BBL has abandoned reasoned discussion in favor of bitter rancor ...
Ah well, the subject has always been difficult to discuss,
Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.TexasScientist said:Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.Oldbear83 said:
That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.
Sam Lowry said:There aren't just lots of Jeffrey Dahmers out there waiting to torture people to death, either. I guess that's a pretty good argument for making it legal, since it isn't a huge problem or anything.BrooksBearLives said:FormerFlash said:This is a major deflection from the vast majority of my post. I stated it was anecdotal evidence that it's not crazy to think that some people may share her line of thinking. I am certainly not equating that viewpoint to the majority of those in favor of late term abortions. You created that strawman and then knocked it over by claiming I wasn't interested in debate as you ignored the rest of my post. You conveniently glossed over my analogy regarding the planning of a wedding. People panic and make rash decisions. This bill opens the door for rash decisions to result in tragic loss of life at a point when even the most hardcore proponents of abortion can't call it a "lump of cells."BrooksBearLives said:FormerFlash said:One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?BrooksBearLives said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Yet you defend the NY billBrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.BrooksBearLives said:If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.Oldbear83 said:
Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?
I'm done.
I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.
I've said it so many times.
Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.
Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.
The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.
If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.
The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.
When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.
This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!
Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.
Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.
No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.
If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.
First off, that wasn't ME using a "straw man." You were using an obviously extreme example that literally no one likes and passing it off as proof of a realistic threat (that's if she even did say that).
You were the one with the straw man. I merely took issue with it. If you're going to invoke terminology, please use it correctly.
Secondly, the rest of your "argument" that "there could be" a wave of women just chomping at the bit to get pregnant, wait 30 weeks and THEN have an abortion... just, y'know... cause feminism and man-hate and George Soros and stuff.
There is NO evidence of that. None. There is nothing to support your aspersions that there are just lots of women out there waiting and begging for late term abortions because they want to kill a healthy baby.
Oldbear83 said:Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.TexasScientist said:Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.Oldbear83 said:
That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.
War and self-defense do not count.
Apparently your hate blinds you. I said, "Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus."Oldbear83 said:
Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.
Not at all. TS' original comment was that the OT God demanded killing. Context is vital.BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.TexasScientist said:Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.Oldbear83 said:
That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.
War and self-defense do not count.
Well now you're moving the goalposts.
You sided with TS when he claimed God likes killing. Then when I noted the Bible, in context, forbids killing, you abandoned Scripture and tried to pretend the Constitution supported your blood-lust.Waco1947 said:Apparently your hate blinds you. I said, "Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus."Oldbear83 said:
Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.
Oldbear83 said:Not at all. TS' original comment was that the OT God demanded killing. Context is vital.BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.TexasScientist said:Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.Oldbear83 said:
That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.
War and self-defense do not count.
Well now you're moving the goalposts.
If he can't defend his claims, that's his problem.
Now about the thread topic. I posted a detailed thought twice now, and you have ignored it twice BBL. May I ask why?
Oldbear83 said:You sided with TS when he claimed God likes killing. Then when I noted the Bible, in context, forbids killing, you abandoned Scripture and tried to pretend the Constitution supported your blood-lust.Waco1947 said:Apparently your hate blinds you. I said, "Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus."Oldbear83 said:
Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.
It's your hate at issue, Waco.
God help you son, you don't even see it.
Waco1947 is famously incognizant of the meaning of the term "straw man."BrooksBearLives said:Sam Lowry said:There aren't just lots of Jeffrey Dahmers out there waiting to torture people to death, either. I guess that's a pretty good argument for making it legal, since it isn't a huge problem or anything.BrooksBearLives said:FormerFlash said:This is a major deflection from the vast majority of my post. I stated it was anecdotal evidence that it's not crazy to think that some people may share her line of thinking. I am certainly not equating that viewpoint to the majority of those in favor of late term abortions. You created that strawman and then knocked it over by claiming I wasn't interested in debate as you ignored the rest of my post. You conveniently glossed over my analogy regarding the planning of a wedding. People panic and make rash decisions. This bill opens the door for rash decisions to result in tragic loss of life at a point when even the most hardcore proponents of abortion can't call it a "lump of cells."BrooksBearLives said:FormerFlash said:One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?BrooksBearLives said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Yet you defend the NY billBrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.BrooksBearLives said:If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.Oldbear83 said:
Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?
I'm done.
I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.
I've said it so many times.
Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.
Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.
The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.
If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.
The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.
When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.
This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!
Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.
Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.
No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.
If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.
First off, that wasn't ME using a "straw man." You were using an obviously extreme example that literally no one likes and passing it off as proof of a realistic threat (that's if she even did say that).
You were the one with the straw man. I merely took issue with it. If you're going to invoke terminology, please use it correctly.
Secondly, the rest of your "argument" that "there could be" a wave of women just chomping at the bit to get pregnant, wait 30 weeks and THEN have an abortion... just, y'know... cause feminism and man-hate and George Soros and stuff.
There is NO evidence of that. None. There is nothing to support your aspersions that there are just lots of women out there waiting and begging for late term abortions because they want to kill a healthy baby.
LMAO! Now THAT'S how you commit to a straw man argument. [golf clap]
Well, you've proven you have abandoned any pretense at courtesy, BBL. So thanks for the clarification.BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:Not at all. TS' original comment was that the OT God demanded killing. Context is vital.BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.TexasScientist said:Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.Oldbear83 said:
That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.
War and self-defense do not count.
Well now you're moving the goalposts.
If he can't defend his claims, that's his problem.
Now about the thread topic. I posted a detailed thought twice now, and you have ignored it twice BBL. May I ask why?
I don't think you're as articulate as you think you are.
Does "BBL IS WHININNNNNNG" and "BBL IS [blablabla] rancor."
You don't really give a ***** Stop acting like you do. If you're going to be a dick, be authentic.
Oldbear83 said:
"You're not an honest debater."
I have made repeated attempts to have a civil discussion. You have repeatedly deserted the effort, BBL.
From your one courteous exchange, I hoped we could establish a base for intelligent discussion and mutual respect.
You, sir, abandoned that effort, not I.
"Compassion" is concern for the suffering and misfortune of others. I have a problem with the idea that it is "compassionate" to tell a woman that killing her unborn offspring is her human right and no one else's business. That is not " compassionate," it is cruel in the extreme both to her and her unborn offspring. "Sure," you say, "go ahead and kill it, those who would tell you that clump of tissue connected to you is a person deserving of compassion are lying and just hate women."Waco1947 said:Apparently your hate blinds you. I said, "Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus."Oldbear83 said:
Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.
** sigh **BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:
"You're not an honest debater."
I have made repeated attempts to have a civil discussion. You have repeatedly deserted the effort, BBL.
From your one courteous exchange, I hoped we could establish a base for intelligent discussion and mutual respect.
You, sir, abandoned that effort, not I.
Your last 20 posts hav been accusations and recriminations, and you're accusing others of abandoning discourse?
Are you high or just naturally obtuse?
Numbers 25; Exodus 19f:12-13 are just a few examples.Oldbear83 said:Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.TexasScientist said:Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.Oldbear83 said:
That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.
War and self-defense do not count.
Straw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.BrooksBearLives said:FormerFlash said:This is a major deflection from the vast majority of my post. I stated it was anecdotal evidence that it's not crazy to think that some people may share her line of thinking. I am certainly not equating that viewpoint to the majority of those in favor of late term abortions. You created that strawman and then knocked it over by claiming I wasn't interested in debate as you ignored the rest of my post. You conveniently glossed over my analogy regarding the planning of a wedding. People panic and make rash decisions. This bill opens the door for rash decisions to result in tragic loss of life at a point when even the most hardcore proponents of abortion can't call it a "lump of cells."BrooksBearLives said:FormerFlash said:One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?BrooksBearLives said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Yet you defend the NY billBrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.BrooksBearLives said:If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.Oldbear83 said:
Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?
I'm done.
I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.
I've said it so many times.
Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.
Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.
The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.
If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.
The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.
When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.
This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!
Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.
Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.
No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.
If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.
First off, that wasn't ME using a "straw man." You were using an obviously extreme example that literally no one likes and passing it off as proof of a realistic threat (that's if she even did say that).
You were the one with the straw man. I merely took issue with it. If you're going to invoke terminology, please use it correctly.
Secondly, the rest of your "argument" that "there could be" a wave of women just chomping at the bit to get pregnant, wait 30 weeks and THEN have an abortion... just, y'know... cause feminism and man-hate and George Soros and stuff.
There is NO evidence of that. None. There is nothing to support your aspersions that there are just lots of women out there waiting and begging for late term abortions because they want to kill a healthy baby.
Preacher Bro BBL!BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:You sided with TS when he claimed God likes killing. Then when I noted the Bible, in context, forbids killing, you abandoned Scripture and tried to pretend the Constitution supported your blood-lust.Waco1947 said:Apparently your hate blinds you. I said, "Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus."Oldbear83 said:
Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.
It's your hate at issue, Waco.
God help you son, you don't even see it.
No. You're not even reading the posts, you're just knee-jerk responding with word-salad boilerplate mixed in with judgements made in statements they haven't made.
You keep making these absolute statements and they're responding with nuance and then you move the goalposts. When someone calls you out on it, you just ignore the point they made and go back to previous points.
You're not an honest debater.
Oldbear83 said:
Hate on, Waco. It's what you do, it's who you are.
The day you must explain your hate to God is coming, but deny it for now you will.
Keep Waco weird.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Well that was weird
So god says the following:Waco1947 said:
PSS
God: "Hey, Waco! Before you go; isn't Oldbear a man?
Waco: "Yes he is."
God: "He wants to force women to through with pregnancy and delivery?"
Waco: "Yes"
God: " Let me get this straight he wants to force women to carry through on birthing which is something he cannot do himself?
Hmmmmm. What if I told him women could force him to stop having sex? Would he see the irony?
Waco: "God, I don't know. He's not big on nuance. But you could ask him yourself the next time he prays which he does often. I am sure he's all ears when it comes to following you."
God: "I don't know. He thinks he speaks for me so I am not sure he will listen."
Waco: "What have you got to lose? You're God."
God: "I'll give it a shot. I am all about love you know - Oldbear, those women he hates, and you, Waco."
Waco: "Do me a favor please? Let me know what he says? He yells hateful stuff at me."
God: "Will do. Good night Waco."
Waco: "Thank you for your love presence with me, Oldbear and those women. Good night God"
Doc Holliday said:So god says the following:Waco1947 said:
PSS
God: "Hey, Waco! Before you go; isn't Oldbear a man?
Waco: "Yes he is."
God: "He wants to force women to through with pregnancy and delivery?"
Waco: "Yes"
God: " Let me get this straight he wants to force women to carry through on birthing which is something he cannot do himself?
Hmmmmm. What if I told him women could force him to stop having sex? Would he see the irony?
Waco: "God, I don't know. He's not big on nuance. But you could ask him yourself the next time he prays which he does often. I am sure he's all ears when it comes to following you."
God: "I don't know. He thinks he speaks for me so I am not sure he will listen."
Waco: "What have you got to lose? You're God."
God: "I'll give it a shot. I am all about love you know - Oldbear, those women he hates, and you, Waco."
Waco: "Do me a favor please? Let me know what he says? He yells hateful stuff at me."
God: "Will do. Good night Waco."
Waco: "Thank you for your love presence with me, Oldbear and those women. Good night God"
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." Jeremiah 1:5
FormerFlash said:Straw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.BrooksBearLives said:FormerFlash said:This is a major deflection from the vast majority of my post. I stated it was anecdotal evidence that it's not crazy to think that some people may share her line of thinking. I am certainly not equating that viewpoint to the majority of those in favor of late term abortions. You created that strawman and then knocked it over by claiming I wasn't interested in debate as you ignored the rest of my post. You conveniently glossed over my analogy regarding the planning of a wedding. People panic and make rash decisions. This bill opens the door for rash decisions to result in tragic loss of life at a point when even the most hardcore proponents of abortion can't call it a "lump of cells."BrooksBearLives said:FormerFlash said:One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?BrooksBearLives said:LIB,MR BEARS said:BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Yet you defend the NY billBrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.BrooksBearLives said:If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.Oldbear83 said:
Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?
I'm done.
I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.
I've said it so many times.
Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.
Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.
The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.
If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.
The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.
When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.
This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!
Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.
Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.
No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.
If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.
First off, that wasn't ME using a "straw man." You were using an obviously extreme example that literally no one likes and passing it off as proof of a realistic threat (that's if she even did say that).
You were the one with the straw man. I merely took issue with it. If you're going to invoke terminology, please use it correctly.
Secondly, the rest of your "argument" that "there could be" a wave of women just chomping at the bit to get pregnant, wait 30 weeks and THEN have an abortion... just, y'know... cause feminism and man-hate and George Soros and stuff.
There is NO evidence of that. None. There is nothing to support your aspersions that there are just lots of women out there waiting and begging for late term abortions because they want to kill a healthy baby.
Just for context because as smart as you pretend to be on this board, this concept seems to be lost on you. As far as your post is concerned, I used anecdotal evidence (by my own admission) to simply negate your claim that no one is going to get pregnant just to have an abortion. With zero research I had evidence of at least one person that wouldn't apply to. Where there is one, there's likely more. As for your skepticism: "that's if she even did say that" Here you go:
http://time.com/4608364/lena-dunham-wish-abortion-comments/
It's worth noting I wasn't even making the argument that women would get pregnant so they could have an abortion. I was saying they may have had every intention of having the baby, but that for any number of reasons they may change their mind. I was simply making the point that even those with good intentions can sometimes make drastic decisions in stressful times and this bill opens up the door for that.
Here was your straw man:
"If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate."
You took one piece from my post that I literally stated was anecdotal evidence and turned that into "labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member." Hence your straw man was created so you could feel intellectually and morally superior as you blasted to smithereens and argument I wasn't even making then declared the battle won stating I'm the one not interested in actual debate.
You may want to throw in the towel. This isn't going well for you and it's clear from your posts that you're letting your emotions get the best of you.