Federal weed reform is dead for now and will be for awhile

RQA wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I can't wait to see you all arguing about who was ahead of who in the Biden bread lines.

Pervis will argue about anything.

Pervis Herr RQA will argue about anything.

RQA wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

What are you willing to do in order to minimize the number of abortions?  As TM pointed out, poverty is one factor. Would you support government paychecks sufficient for a mother to raise a child in comfort without ever having to get a job?  Is there anything you'd support to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies?  If you consider abortion a problem, do you have any solutions other than making it illegal and telling women to give the kid up for adoption if they don't want him?

The morality of abortion is separate from societal policies about child-rearing.  

I am all for doing things to reduce poverty.   I am sure you do as well.   Printing up money to give to people doesn't seem to have helped.

Limiting the number of pregnancies?   Contraception is cheap and widely available.

Adoption?   There would be a home for every unwanted newborn.

How much are you willing to have the State pay survivors of each woman who dies because she was denied an abortion?

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

If you really love babies, you should understand that a woman who's brought one to term and given birth might not actually want to give the kid away.  But she may not have the resources to care for a child, which is why money is a major factor in abortion decisions.

Your argument is that a woman would rather kill her baby than give it up for adoption.

You are also transphobic.

RQA wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

If you really love babies, you should understand that a woman who's brought one to term and given birth might not actually want to give the kid away.  But she may not have the resources to care for a child, which is why money is a major factor in abortion decisions.

Your argument is that a woman would rather kill her baby than give it up for adoption.

You are also transphobic.

You cut out the vast majority of my post, and I'd like you to display some intellectual honesty and address it in full - particularly the questions I asked, which are relevant and would lead to a better discussion if you don't run away from them. Here's the post again:

Morality aside, anti-abortion laws are inextricably linked to child-rearing - and it appears that you have no plans for that part of the equation other than adoption.

If you really love babies, you should understand that a woman who's brought one to term and given birth might not actually want to give the kid away. But she may not have the resources to care for a child, which is why money is a major factor in abortion decisions.

Do we need to "print money" in order to fund a comfortable motherhood? Why not just reverse the Trump corporate tax cut and give all of that money to pregnant women who decide not to have abortions? Would you support that?

Other possible ways to minimize abortion numbers:

Make sex outside of marriage illegal, with a five-year prison term.

Mandate vasectomies for unmarried males past puberty, including newly divorced men and new widowers. They're 90-95% reversible, and that surgery would be free after the wedding.

Install free condom dispensers in all middle schools, high schools and colleges, and make birth control pills free for all women.

Would you support any of those options? Do you have any ideas at all, other than making abortion illegal?

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

You cut out the vast majority of my post ...

You were arguing that women would rather kill their baby than give it up for adoption. And that followed your argument that the morality of abortion depends of the degree of governmental child care policies.

The "vast majority" of your post was silly drivel not deserving of serious discussion.

RQA wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

You cut out the vast majority of my post ...

You were arguing that women would rather kill their baby than give it up for adoption.   And that followed your argument that the morality of abortion depends of the degree of governmental child care policies.

The "vast majority" of your post was silly drivel not deserving of serious discussion.  

Herr RQA refusing to discuss the morality of risking a woman's life by taking away her right for an abortion.

Furthermore, refusing to address the morality of forcing a child to live a life of poverty by forcing a birth.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Herr RQA refusing to discuss the morality of risking a woman's life by taking away her right for an abortion.

The mortality of abortion is 100%

Furthermore, refusing to address the morality of forcing a child to live a life of poverty by forcing a birth.

Ask a person in poverty if they would prefer to be alive or dead.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Herr RQA refusing to discuss the morality of risking a woman's life by taking away her right for an abortion.

The mortality of abortion is 100%

Furthermore, refusing to address the morality of forcing a child to live a life of poverty by forcing a birth.

Ask a person in poverty if they would prefer to be alive or dead.

Good you agree that abortion should be legal. 70% of the country is on your side.

It depends, many are out killing each other because they see life as hopeless.

RQA wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

You cut out the vast majority of my post ...

You were arguing that women would rather kill their baby than give it up for adoption.   And that followed your argument that the morality of abortion depends of the degree of governmental child care policies.

The "vast majority" of your post was silly drivel not deserving of serious discussion.  

That was not a logical reading of my argument, and your refusal to discuss any other means at all by which we can prevent abortions tells me that you don't actually care about abortions.

I wish you had real convictions and an ability to discuss them.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

I wish you had real convictions and an ability to discuss them.

I really don't know how you can be this confused.

My conviction is clear - abortion is immoral.

You? Depends on the availability of government child care programs. Oh, and Trump!

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

You were arguing that women would rather kill their baby than give it up for adoption.   And that followed your argument that the morality of abortion depends of the degree of governmental child care policies.

The "vast majority" of your post was silly drivel not deserving of serious discussion.  

Herr RQA refusing to discuss the morality of risking a woman's life by taking away her right for an abortion.

Furthermore, refusing to address the morality of forcing a child to live a life of poverty by forcing a birth.

There is a sizable gulf between the right's characterization of abortion and their willingness to help prevent it. While they talk about baby-murdering at abortion mills, it turns out that most of them don't want to do anything about it other than say it should be illegal.

If abortion is murder, it's by far the easiest form of murder to conceal. But most people who say they're against abortion don't even like to talk about effective enforcement of anti-abortion laws, which would require investigations of miscarriage claims and stiff prison terms for women.

RQA certainly doesn't want to consider properly funding single women who choose not to have abortions, even if it could be paid for just by rolling back the Trump corporate tax cut. As a male, he definitely doesn't want vasectomy mandates for single men, even though 75% of abortions happen outside of marriage - which means if there are 800k abortions in a year, such a mandate could prevent well over a half million baby murders. No, guys like RQA want women and girls to make the sacrifices, even if they're raped.

If you thought that hundreds of thousands of babies were being murdered, and it was deeply disturbing to you, you'd do more than just say the government you don't trust should pass a law against it. It's fairly obvious that RQA's concern is fake.

That's really what it comes down to. If you actually and sincerely believe that a fetus is a baby and abortion is murder, you should be burning down Planned Parenthoods every damn day. If you're just a disingenuous piece of shit, then all you do is talk about how immoral everyone who believes differently from you is, while doing literally nothing to stem the tide of infanticide. It truly does beggar belief that these people can do nothing about what they believe to be literal infanticide and still somehow claim the moral high ground on the issue.

Abortion mills?  

A majority of abortions are done now via drugs, just like they were when the Constitution was written.

There does seem to be some highly motivated though processes on the forced birth side.

Science informs us that more often than not the egg/sperm combination is washed out of the woman's body instead of imbedding on the uterus wall.

Are all of these some sort of murder or manslaughter?

If the egg/sperm combination has a "soul" as a few of the religious say, what is God's meaning for murdering multitudes more than reach the uterus wall?

It does not appear that the biology in "God's creation", nor the history of people before the last 175 years mostly believing that the "soul" either entered the baby at first breath, or the fetus when is began to kick (quickening), stand on the side of these forced birthers.

If Herr RQA has any logical or religious argument that is beyond selective readings from some sort of bible, has he ever produces them for logical debate?

Cameron wrote:That's really what it comes down to. If you actually and sincerely believe that a fetus is a baby and abortion is murder, you should be burning down Planned Parenthoods every damn day. If you're just a disingenuous piece of shit, then all you do is talk about how immoral everyone who believes differently from you is, while doing literally nothing to stem the tide of infanticide. It truly does beggar belief that these people can do nothing about what they believe to be literal infanticide and still somehow claim the moral high ground on the issue.

They try to say they have the moral high ground, but have they ever produced a sound logical argument, given the religious history of all religions, and of the science of reproduction?

Just because someone claims they are morally superior doesn't make it so.

Cameron wrote:That's really what it comes down to. If you actually and sincerely believe that a fetus is a baby and abortion is murder, you should be burning down Planned Parenthoods every damn day. If you're just a disingenuous piece of shit, then all you do is talk about how immoral everyone who believes differently from you is, while doing literally nothing to stem the tide of infanticide. It truly does beggar belief that these people can do nothing about what they believe to be literal infanticide and still somehow claim the moral high ground on the issue.

Exactly, and there's plenty they could do that wouldn't require committing a crime. But I asked RQA, "Do you have any ideas at all, other than making abortion illegal?" He couldn't come up with a single thing he'd be willing to do in order to stop any of those baby murders, other than telling the government to make it illegal. It's hard to consider him anything more than a clown.