Page 1 of 4

Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:02 am
by Cap'n Cat
Image


:ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:04 am
by Ibanez
Cap'n Cat wrote:Image


:ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:
hahahahahahaha

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:33 am
by 89Hen
And that meme shows exactly why the pro-abortion folks don't get it. :coffee:

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:59 pm
by JohnStOnge
So...let's see...if you say a woman doesn't have a right to kill her own progeny that means you're saying she's not a person? Is that what that means?

Or maybe saying that other people shouldn't have to pay for a woman's contraception is saying she's not a person?

You do realize that taking either of those positions is pretty ridiculous, right?

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:55 pm
by kalm
89Hen wrote:And that meme shows exactly why the pro-abortion folks don't get it. :coffee:
The only people who are pro abortion are congressional conks after a weekend bender...at least the straight ones...

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:12 pm
by Grizalltheway
kalm wrote:
89Hen wrote:And that meme shows exactly why the pro-abortion folks don't get it. :coffee:
The only people who are pro abortion are congressional conks after a weekend bender...at least the straight ones...
So no one?

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:50 am
by 89Hen
kalm wrote:
89Hen wrote:And that meme shows exactly why the pro-abortion folks don't get it. :coffee:
The only people who are pro abortion...
Anyone who is pro-choice has to believe that abortion is not murder. Can you argue otherwise?

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:53 am
by Ibanez
JohnStOnge wrote:So...let's see...if you say a woman doesn't have a right to kill her own progeny that means you're saying she's not a person? Is that what that means?

Or maybe saying that other people shouldn't have to pay for a woman's contraception is saying she's not a person?

You do realize that taking either of those positions is pretty ridiculous, right?
No, it's saying that Republicans give more value and rights to unborn babies and corporations than it does to women aka abortion rights.

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:55 am
by 89Hen
Ibanez wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:So...let's see...if you say a woman doesn't have a right to kill her own progeny that means you're saying she's not a person? Is that what that means?

Or maybe saying that other people shouldn't have to pay for a woman's contraception is saying she's not a person?

You do realize that taking either of those positions is pretty ridiculous, right?
No, it's saying that Republicans give more value and rights to unborn babies and corporations than it does to women aka abortion rights.
Maybe that's what it's saying, but that doesn't make it true.

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:56 am
by Ibanez
89Hen wrote:
Ibanez wrote: No, it's saying that Republicans give more value and rights to unborn babies and corporations than it does to women aka abortion rights.
Maybe that's what it's saying, but that doesn't make it true.
That's how I understand that cleverly crafted meme. :roll:

Not saying I agree, just an explanation. :mrgreen:

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:32 pm
by OL FU
:? Conks don't have reproductive rights, we're all men :?

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:41 pm
by Ivytalk
Cap'n Cat wrote:Image


:ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:
Hey, douchenozzle, an office building isn't a person. Only the corporation that owns it is a person. :nod:

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:55 pm
by D1B
kalm wrote:
89Hen wrote:And that meme shows exactly why the pro-abortion folks don't get it. :coffee:
The only people who are pro abortion are congressional conks after a weekend bender...at least the straight ones...
Yeah, all none of em.

Conks fuck almost as many boys as catholic priests.

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:07 pm
by D1B
89Hen wrote:And that meme shows exactly why the pro-abortion folks don't get it. :coffee:
Conk Disease - the inability to show or understand empathy. Usually caused by one dimensional thinking, lack of critical ethical inquiry and lack of creativity.

In this case, they have no clue that unwanted pregnancy is a scourge to women and often ruins their lives. Their black and white world view (a fetus is a person, therefore abortion is murder) is a cop out to avoid understanding tough, complex issues and doing the right thing, even if it's unpalatable to their checkbook or ravenous desire for power and control.

See also:

The death penalty
Gun control
Hispanic Immigration
Welfare
Women's rights
The war on drugs
The war on terror
Organized religion and separation of church and state
Taxes
Supply side economics and Ayn Rand
Homosexuality
The plight of the black man
The prison industrial complex
Military spending
Marijuana
The youth of America
The fine arts
.....and on and on and on.......

Conks - total fuckheads.

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:19 pm
by Chizzang
89Hen wrote:And that meme shows exactly why the pro-abortion folks don't get it. :coffee:
Depends on exactly what you mean by "Don't get it"
Because sometimes the chasm between the two sides is so far apart neither side seems to "get it"


:kisswink:

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:32 pm
by JohnStOnge
No, it's saying that Republicans give more value and rights to unborn babies and corporations than it does to women aka abortion rights.
Actually for it to make sense, there would have to be a situation in which people were saying that a woman has no right to life and no right to exercise free speech through contributions to the candidate of her choice.

The issue of abortion rights revolves around the nature of the unborn. If you recognize the truth...that abortion is the killing of a living member of our species...you SHOULD be able to see why it makes sense to say a woman can't elect to have somebody do that. It is no more a denial of rights than saying I can't kill my wife because I'm tired of being married is.

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:34 am
by 89Hen
D1B wrote:In this case, they have no clue that unwanted pregnancy is a scourge to women and often ruins their lives. Their black and white world view (a fetus is a person, therefore abortion is murder)
I'd love to hear your definition of a "person". I don't pretend to know the exact moment and that's why I'm against abortion at any point. How can you say at day 89 of a pregnancy it's OK, but at day 90 it's not? We're not talking about granting a driver's license or some other privilege where we arbitrarily set an age for granting that privilege, we're talking about THE most basic right... life.

BTW, a conviction of DUI can ruin your life too, even if you're caught without hurting a single person. Perhaps we should do away with those convictions. We wouldn't want to infringe on somebody's bad choices they made themselves.

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:48 am
by kalm
89Hen wrote:
kalm wrote:
The only people who are pro abortion...
Anyone who is pro-choice has to believe that abortion is not murder. Can you argue otherwise?
That still doesn't make them pro abortion.

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:54 am
by AZGrizFan
D1B wrote:
89Hen wrote:And that meme shows exactly why the pro-abortion folks don't get it. :coffee:
Conk Disease - the inability to show or understand empathy. Usually caused by one dimensional thinking, lack of critical ethical inquiry and lack of creativity.

In this case, they have no clue that unwanted pregnancy is a scourge to women and often ruins their lives. Their black and white world view (a fetus is a person, therefore abortion is murder) is a cop out to avoid understanding tough, complex issues and doing the right thing, even if it's unpalatable to their checkbook or ravenous desire for power and control.

See also:

The death penalty
Gun control
Hispanic Immigration
Welfare
Women's rights
The war on drugs
The war on terror
Organized religion and separation of church and state
Taxes
Supply side economics and Ayn Rand
Homosexuality
The plight of the black man
The prison industrial complex
Military spending
Marijuana
The youth of America
The fine arts
.....and on and on and on.......

Conks - total fuckheads.
Jesus H. Christ. Cry me a fucking river.... :roll: :roll:

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:09 am
by Pwns
kalm wrote:
89Hen wrote: Anyone who is pro-choice has to believe that abortion is not murder. Can you argue otherwise?
That still doesn't make them pro abortion.
kalm,

Why do groups like planed parenthood oppose required ultrasound scans for anyone seeking an abortion? Don't they claim they want women to make informed decisions? Why not make sure that they are informed about the development of the unborn baby? The answer is that they don't want women to dither because what they have been told is a blob might too closely resemble a baby for their liking.

Why does planned parenthood think a 14-year-old can make a decision about abortions when they can't make practically any other decision about health care? Abortion is health care according to the pro-abortion folks, so why don't they need parents permission for a procedure that is 100% elective in the vast majority of cases? And why does pp go so far as to try and cover up cases of statutory rape?

Also, do you think the grey-haired, white-male billionaires who help bankroll planned parenthood do so because they care about women's health and children? F*** no. They do that because they are a part of the Malthusian religion.

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:09 am
by 89Hen
kalm wrote:
89Hen wrote: Anyone who is pro-choice has to believe that abortion is not murder. Can you argue otherwise?
That still doesn't make them pro abortion.
It certainly makes them OK with it.

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:19 am
by CID1990
kalm wrote:
89Hen wrote: Anyone who is pro-choice has to believe that abortion is not murder. Can you argue otherwise?
That still doesn't make them pro abortion.
ha ha

I love semantic acrobatics from the left

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:30 am
by Chizzang
89Hen wrote:
kalm wrote:
That still doesn't make them pro abortion.
It certainly makes them OK with it.

Why does the value of life take on such monumental proportion when it comes to the fetus and yet, take on lesser value in other regards and situations..?
The holy cluster globule inside some other woman's body is the most important "thing" in the world to be debated somehow..?

When do we place the same general value on a globule of potential life as we do on another life in general?
why are Conservatives so OVER LOADED with values in this one little area

Odd frankly...

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:59 am
by CID1990
Chizzang wrote:
89Hen wrote: It certainly makes them OK with it.

Why does the value of life take on such monumental proportion when it comes to the fetus and yet, take on lesser value in other regards and situations..?
The holy cluster globule inside some other woman's body is the most important "thing" in the world to be debated somehow..?

When do we place the same general value on a globule of potential life as we do on another life in general?
why are Conservatives so OVER LOADED with values in this one little area

Odd frankly...
Actually, I know others' mileage differs with my own, but my moral objection to abortion begins when the fetus becomes viable and/or has been scientifically proven to be capable of pain and suffering

So I'm willing to meet women halfway on the abortion issue- suck those little clumpy globules out all you want

But there is a point beyond which I consider it killing and I think that right now, that 20 week gestational line is a good benchmark.

And yes I'm a man and fvck you I am entitled to an opinion on it just as men were entitled to opinions on the gassing of Jews

Re: Conks and Reproductive Rights, II

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:20 am
by Chizzang
CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:

Why does the value of life take on such monumental proportion when it comes to the fetus and yet, take on lesser value in other regards and situations..?
The holy cluster globule inside some other woman's body is the most important "thing" in the world to be debated somehow..?

When do we place the same general value on a globule of potential life as we do on another life in general?
why are Conservatives so OVER LOADED with values in this one little area

Odd frankly...
Actually, I know others' mileage differs with my own, but my moral objection to abortion begins when the fetus becomes viable and/or has been scientifically proven to be capable of pain and suffering

So I'm willing to meet women halfway on the abortion issue- suck those little clumpy globules out all you want

But there is a point beyond which I consider it killing and I think that right now, that 20 week gestational line is a good benchmark.

And yes I'm a man and fvck you I am entitled to an opinion on it just as men were entitled to opinions on the gassing of Jews

I am not far from where you stand... :nod:
The issue for me is always "is it capable of suffering" so animal rights / human rights / etc...
It's all about the capacity to suffer

Side Note:
In my opinion 20 weeks is LATE to have an abortion
Most women know they are pregnant within 8 weeks