Jump to content
eveln

Backing the winner

Recommended Posts

I'll shortly die of popcorn overdose I'm certain.

choosing your own death is good, but, ... um, as long as you think it's worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently discovered I'm just not capable of the level of negativity and naysaying the world seems to have shifted into the norm.

While I don't actually expect he will get half of his shit done, I can't "hate" and "shit talk" someone that readily.

He's not even here to defend himself.

 

I'll repeat myself till the cows come home;

He's going to do something, It might be horrendous, but with his new found ability to be 'convinced' of a more flexible leadership strategy (what people call backpedaling, I call 'experienced advisers' talking sense to him), I just can't jump to the same "110% sure he'll be horrid" conclusion everyone else is.

 

I mean the amount of hate talk toward Obama wasn't too far off (admittedly, a lot was racism, but still), so I'm not even rounding my ducks up, let alone counting them.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may have been a few things that have rubbed me off the wrong way about the pres-elect.

 

After reading this, it got me worried.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/us-president-trump-kills-tpp-with-a-smile/ar-AAm9tG1?li=AAgfYrC

 

With the stroke of his pen and a smile, US President Donald Trump lived up to his promise of killing the Trans-Pacific Partnership between America, Australia, New Zealand and nine other Pacific nations.

The TPP was originally billed as the gold-standard in free trade deals and a strategy to blunt China's dominance in the Asia-Pacific.

But just three days after the TPP's champion, former president Barack Obama, moved out of the White House Trump, sitting in the Oval Office, signed the executive order to withdraw the US from the TPP.

 

Okay, I figure business wise, he knows the drill, had his ups and downs as every human being does and then making this announcement, boom, you'd wonder what happens next, our currency slides against the greenback, and purchasing goods or services in the US will all of a sudden skyrocket. Not that it bothers me entirely yet at the same time, considering that our relationship with the US has been steady, Trump is inflicting alot of damage to other countries.

 

Agian, I understand his motive to restructure his country, to regrow the roots but with a response like that to every other country, wouldn't he be shutting them out.

 

On another note, as soon as Obama moved out and Trump moved in, Trump immediately redecorated the Oval Office and placed back the Martin Luther King Jr. bust with the Winston Churchill bust. Of course, he received praised for doing that. Honestly I find that an insult to Obama, as when he placed the bust in the office in his first term, the British Government was up in arms but Obama didn't care, they had to respect his opinions yet still feels as an insult to african american people especially.

 

Oh, and damn, how many years has it been since I last posted.

Edited by Blue Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the amount of hate talk toward Obama wasn't too far off...

You *must* be joking. There were no global marches or commentary, no memes mocking him, and no foreign powers erecting statues of the clown prince.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I mean the amount of hate talk toward Obama wasn't too far off...

You *must* be joking. There were no global marches or commentary, no memes mocking him, and no foreign powers erecting statues of the clown prince.

 

 

Global, no, but I think that's a phenomenon that was brought on by the rise of insane SJW's between when Obama was elected, and when Trump was elected.

 

I don't think anyone is REALLY expecting him to say.... nuke the UK or some shit..... yet there was a protest there?

Just a big case of online activists putting their noses where they shouldn't be.

 

When Obama got in, you'd be amazed (or so I'm told) how much the south rose up and fussed. It wasn't covered by the news much (america doesnt want to shine america in a bad light), but from people I know over there.. it wasn't pretty.

Then we had full on global smear campaigns trying to get him kicked out in any way possible, including falsifying legal documents and birth records.

 

Just different ways to hate someone, really.

Trumps copped more, but I still maintain it's not a "Night and Day" affair.

 

Because of how well he was liked by the end, people forget how much he was attacked at the start.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he has the brains to do anything alone, but he has advisers and an entire party behind him to push and nudge as needed.

For me, the difference I see, is that he is blasé enough with the technicalities of making decisions, that the red tape may just tear under his pure bigheaded force, rather than stop the changes (be they good or bad).

 

Plenty of social commentary has already said this, but to paraphrase them;

The youth is sick of growing up in a world where things are wrong, and nothing gets done. We might not end up liking what gets done, but this is probably the first time we've at least had a damn good bet that SOMETHING is going to change. And really, that's what the majority of the youth vote wanted.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Just different ways to hate someone, really.

Trumps copped more, but I still maintain it's not a "Night and Day" affair."

 

Of course Obama got hate, every President gets hate from the opposition . This particular opposition doesn't reside in the country though.

Yes of course the lackies and all the young gullibles do, but Soros don't.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I still maintain it's not a "Night and Day" affair.

 

nah its more a brown vs orange affair!

​but i think youre way off on the scale of differences. makes me wonder if you consume most of your news from within a social media bubble.

​yes, there were/are haters of Obama, particularly among the republican dominated south and cadres of clamouring teagbaggers and assorted hicks. yes, there were pockets of people hung up on Obama's middle name and the "faked" birth certificate non-issue. but these stories never gained much traction among the general populace and were given short shrift in the socially left-leaning mainstream media which in the short term became all the more left-leaning as they reflected the general tide of optimism that came with achieving the milestone of electing the first black guy, something that was widely celebrated by donkeys and elephants alike. and there was never much disagreement over his suitability as a statesman who could convey the dignity and gravitas the highest office (should) demand.

 

but Trump? the media have been practically united in their distaste for him. he's been painted as a joke or a dangerous lunatic from the start. sure, he knows exactly how to press the buttons of liberals, and to them he is their nightmare incarnate — you can hear it in their shrill cries. but even conservatives hate him. the primaries were fucking brutal. the republican party all but disintegrated. many staunch republicans blame him for that, and they will be picking up the pieces for the next four years at least. you would have to say vast numbers of republicans voted for him simply because he wasnt a dem despite hating the cunt. and there were masses of swinging voters, even pro-Bernie people, who chose him not so much because they liked him for the job, but because they thought electing a cunt would be disruptive. the level of hate is unprecedented.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I still maintain it's not a "Night and Day" affair.

 

nah its more a brown vs orange affair!

​but i think youre way off on the scale of differences. makes me wonder if you consume most of your news from within a social media bubble.

​yes, there were/are haters of Obama, particularly among the republican dominated south and cadres of clamouring teagbaggers and assorted hicks. yes, there were pockets of people hung up on Obama's middle name and the "faked" birth certificate non-issue. but these stories never gained much traction among the general populace and were given short shrift in the socially left-leaning mainstream media which in the short term became all the more left-leaning as they reflected the general tide of optimism that came with achieving the milestone of electing the first black guy, something that was widely celebrated by donkeys and elephants alike. and there was never much disagreement over his suitability as a statesman who could convey the dignity and gravitas the highest office (should) demand.

 

but Trump? the media have been practically united in their distaste for him. he's been painted as a joke or a dangerous lunatic from the start. sure, he knows exactly how to press the buttons of liberals, and to them he is their nightmare incarnate — you can hear it in their shrill cries. but even conservatives hate him. the primaries were fucking brutal. the republican party all but disintegrated. many staunch republicans blame him for that, and they will be picking up the pieces for the next four years at least. you would have to say vast numbers of republicans voted for him simply because he wasnt a dem despite hating the cunt. and there were masses of swinging voters, even pro-Bernie people, who chose him not so much because they liked him for the job, but because they thought electing a cunt would be disruptive. the level of hate is unprecedented.

 

 

 

Fair cop, I see what you're saying.

And yes, I do absorb most of my news from a social media bubble, I find it far less Bias and far less negative than public media sources.

I've always felt individuals talking about it have less to gain from lying than 'paid for by the government' media do.

 

you make a lot of valid points, you really do; but in this discussion last night with my mother, I looked into the facts.

The vote wasn't far off 50/50 total votes (1 or 2% IIRC), and he won based on electorates.

So really, 50% of the USA wanted him, so I'm finding it hard to take the shitstorm seriously when elections have been 'close' many times before.

 

Yes, hes hated worse than Obama ever was.

Yes, for some reason, it's international.

However, he won the election, he didn't get in via magic or default.

 

I think the magnification is powered by the "first shocking thing" in media history, since declaring 'war on terror' 20 years ago or whatever, and the rise of overly vocal SJW's fanning the flames.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fair cop, I see what you're saying.

And yes, I do absorb most of my news from a social media bubble, I find it far less Bias and far less negative than public media sources.

I've always felt individuals talking about it have less to gain from lying than 'paid for by the government' media do.

 

you make a lot of valid points, you really do; but in this discussion last night with my mother, I looked into the facts.

The vote wasn't far off 50/50 total votes (1 or 2% IIRC), and he won based on electorates.

So really, 50% of the USA wanted him, so I'm finding it hard to take the shitstorm seriously when elections have been 'close' many times before.

 

Yes, hes hated worse than Obama ever was.

Yes, for some reason, it's international.

However, he won the election, he didn't get in via magic or default.

 

I think the magnification is powered by the "first shocking thing" in media history, since declaring 'war on terror' 20 years ago or whatever, and the rise of overly vocal SJW's fanning the flames.

 

 

he didn't win on "electorates", he won on the college votes which essentially hinged on only a few states - proportional representation in non-compulsory voting is not really representative by default

 

if it is, then note that clinton garnered a few million more ticks in the popular vote when all votes are amalgamated, but the college system of electing a president in the usa apportions far more leverage to only a few states, as a matter of historical accord

 

 

perchance you are beyond the crap that is mainstream media, i can recommend "the conversation" : https://theconversation.com/au

not only independent, but every author has to announce their bias via strict disclosure requirements

 

next up on the reading list is aeon : https://aeon.co/

mostly because it's not conventional "news" at all, but it is about real people and things on the planet that make for a much more positive window on the world, and maybe gives a better view of what's actually happening on the planet than the 24/7 shockfest that the traditional media purveyors are flogging

 

skyhooks had it right with "horror movie", but i think zappa had it even better with "i'm the slime"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" ...yes, there were pockets of people hung up on Obama's middle name and the "faked" birth certificate non-issue. ..."

 

It's my understanding that birth stuff was first instigated by the Clintons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but Trump? the media have been practically united in their distaste for him. he's been painted as a joke or a dangerous lunatic from the start. sure, he knows exactly how to press the buttons of liberals, and to them he is their nightmare incarnate — you can hear it in their shrill cries. but even conservatives hate him. the primaries were fucking brutal. the republican party all but disintegrated. many staunch republicans blame him for that, and they will be picking up the pieces for the next four years at least. you would have to say vast numbers of republicans voted for him simply because he wasnt a dem despite hating the cunt. and there were masses of swinging voters, even pro-Bernie people, who chose him not so much because they liked him for the job, but because they thought electing a cunt would be disruptive. the level of hate is unprecedented.

 

 

Re the underlined : If it were me I would've chosen him simply to stop Hilary and the Democrats. But, had I had a vote when Bush was up

for the job it would have been the Dems all the way...

Bush still doesn't have a clue as to what he was doing there.

 

The Republicans hated Trump cos he wasn't a pollie and seemed ( to them ) to just sort of pick a side to run with and for. The Reps were

already emeshed in the bullshit media and didn't want to see past the shitfest that was being flung like a wall of trebuchets filled with burning

oil and continually flung in their faces. I'd say most of the Republicans underestimated the tyranny that a potential Pres. Hilary would've been.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

I disagree, I think she would have been innocuous, he rather scares me.

 

He may work out, but some of his policies are likely to cause major issues both domestic and foreign.

 

We'll have to wait and see, the first few days have been ok.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire media being against Trump is what got him elected.

 

Remember there's only a few percentage points in difference between trust in the media and trust in politicians.

 

Reporters hating on Trump were rightly ignored. And Trump's not a politician. He's an outsider.

 

The media have no ability to control or influence Trump.

 

It's a wonderful thing.

 

For once there's a President who will step on eggshells and re-examine third rails and holy cows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

Of course he may also start WWIII but in a way I agree, a shake up was needed.

 

Hopefully the U.S gets off the world stage, at least to some degree and various troubled areas have to sort out their own problems.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire media being against Trump is what got him elected.

 

 

I think it was Hilary that got Trump elected.

 

It's simple really. As many women out there that think Hilary's pretty cool re Bill's indiscretions, there's lots out there that

just wonder how and why she staid. And the answer is above all else she wanted to be POTUS. << That's pretty cold, imo.

 

I mean Bill had so much respect for the position he held as POTUS he allowed a Monica ( and supposedly others ) to befoul the most

respected American job. The Dems got it sooo wrong putting her up for it. A woman could have been elected this year, just never Hilary.

The US will be a part of the world stage. It's a bit hard not to be. They will hopefully show a way of looking after their own needs

first without having to hate on every Tom, Dick, and Harry of a country to do it.

For some stupid regressive reason, lot's of supposedly rational people think the world will fall apart without lots and lots of bureaucratic

busybody minders copping a too healthy wage for making up lots of bullshit laws and regulations. We've come a long way. We know

what nasty weaponry may do, and why it's better not to have it happen on our doorstop. This is why we supposedly try to have politicians

that as well as being educated, know what it really means for their and all our families to live long healthy lives.

 

This is why we need politicians from all walks of life.

 

\end rant.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The entire media being against Trump is what got him elected.

 

 

I think it was Hilary that got Trump elected.

 

It's simple really. As many women out there that think Hilary's pretty cool re Bill's indiscretions, there's lots out there that

just wonder how and why she staid. And the answer is above all else she wanted to be POTUS. << That's pretty cold, imo.

 

I mean Bill had so much respect for the position he held as POTUS he allowed a Monica ( and supposedly others ) to befoul the most

respected American job. The Dems got it sooo wrong putting her up for it. A woman could have been elected this year, just never Hilary.

The US will be a part of the world stage. It's a bit hard not to be. They will hopefully show a way of looking after their own needs

first without having to hate on every Tom, Dick, and Harry of a country to do it.

For some stupid regressive reason, lot's of supposedly rational people think the world will fall apart without lots and lots of bureaucratic

busybody minders copping a too healthy wage for making up lots of bullshit laws and regulations. We've come a long way. We know

what nasty weaponry may do, and why it's better not to have it happen on our doorstop. This is why we supposedly try to have politicians

that as well as being educated, know what it really means for their and all our families to live long healthy lives.

 

This is why we need politicians from all walks of life.

 

\end rant.

 

her motives for standing by her man could have been extremely self-serving, or not at all. how would you know either way?

you seem sure this choice unmasked her as a federal-reserve-digging whore who'd made a Faustian pact — willing to trade her self-respect as a slighted woman in order to play the good wife, as long as it furthered her filthy ambitions? maybe she did feel utterly betrayed, and as such was determined not to let old Billy boy add insult to injury by not only humiliating her before the eyes of the world but also damaging her future career prospects, and to that end, she opted to play a long game. besides, you could argue that, if not in the eyes of 1990s america then in her own extended social circle, she was damned either way.

but its a bit much to assume much at all about the private workings of their relationship. for all we know they had 'an understanding' all along. sure, such an understanding could reflect the mutual interests of two amoral shitbags. but it could also be that of a couple of super-freaky birds of a feather. maybe they were on a break ;) or maybe he was a straight-up sleaze bag and she was determined to nurture their relationship back to health. the latter, Hillary could easily have wanted to do as part of her private life whether or not she had crazed aspirations for her public one. we dont know!

by the way, if Obama wanted to buy his interns gifts, maybe splash out on a dress occasionally, i would only care to the extent that it was professional misconduct and/or harassment. and of course, the exposure of any behaviour that broke the illusion of strict monogamous piety would be a shameful political mistake, but thats only because the world at large is so repressed and beset by a shameful and unhealthy interest other people's rude bits and where they put them.

in all other respects, if these last eight years Obama has been banging groupies left and right, good luck to him. i would hope with Michelle's approval but — yeah, really no more of my business than what colour underwear you prefer, if indeed you wear it at all, or how you would personally react to infidelity and if it would match the one deemed to be correct by various strangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"... i would only care to the extent that it was professional misconduct and/or harassment. and of course, the exposure of any behaviour that broke the illusion of strict monogamous piety would be a shameful political mistake, but thats only because the world at large is so repressed and beset by a shameful and unhealthy interest other people's rude bits and where they put them..."

 

Which is why I wrote it above the way I did. Monogamy is pretty much the Christian way, it's apparently what separates us from the ' heathens '.

 

However, in my oldish age I feel that the Oval Office is perhaps not the place for fun sexual activities, however free a spirit you may be.

The whole country looks to the person who inhabits that Office as someone who should be respected. Even if they didn't vote for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

her motives for standing by her man could have been extremely self-serving, or not at all. how would you know either way?

Um, yep. Though when it comes to politicians we tend to assume the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-28/mike-pence-fires-up-anti-abortion-activists-in-march-for-life/8219620

 

This is going to be potentially very bothersome. I'm pro abortion, always have been always will be.

 

I do understand ( I think ) Trumps veto on the spending of Government dollars to pay for abortion counselling etc. of peoples

in other countries being given help from American charity groups.

 

I do understand the push to cut off taxpayer funded abortions within America, but here, is where it gets murky for me.

Obviously a Rep. thing to go pro-life, but it seems that US's own stats show a huge drop in the requirement of abortions, since

the legalisation in most states of abortion. And after all, Trump has vowed to look after every single US person.

I really think he needs to not go totally pro-life on this issue . I wonder if he will go against his VP's public opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do understand ( I think ) Trumps veto on the spending of Government dollars to pay for abortion counselling etc. of peoples

in other countries being given help from American charity groups.

 

I do understand the push to cut off taxpayer funded abortions within America, but here, is where it gets murky for me.

Murky is right. It's kinda a tough one.

For me personally, I support people's right to choose. I feel I have to. It may not be a path I would like to take, but I feel I have to respect other people's right to make choices that I would not. To that end, education and information is paramount, to me. Restricting the free flow of information is not something I take lightly, or generally get behind.

However, it is because I try to respect other people's right to choose that I feel I have to try to respect their views in coming to those choices. So, for example, if someone is against abortion, I don't want to get all up in their face and tell them they're wrong, wrong, wrong. I want them to have their space, and me to have mine, and a free flow of information between us.

 

So I do kinda get that Trump (and Pence) do have different opinions to me, and if I'm a person of my word then I have to stand up to that and accept that. And I do. I also understand that personal morals and ethics have to guide us as we all move through the world... but... a small niggly part of me just troubles at a President of the US taking a hardline approach like he has done because of his personal beliefs (I also understand he's a lot more about the dollar than I am, and true it would probably save America a crap-ton of money). I guess I'm kinda hinting that I'd like someone like the POTUS to take his personal morals and ethics into account but only up to a point, at which point he has to take into account the wellbeing of the greater whole? But that also seems like a cop-out; after all, if it was an issue I agreed with, would I still have that niggly doubt in my mind? Or would I not bother that he's kinda imposing his own ethics on everyone when I don't necessarily choose to conduct myself like that if I agreed with him?

 

I guess, for me, there's no real easy answer. I support education and access to resources to help people have a greater chance at making a more informed choice. I think restricting access to services that affect women more than men (abortions) is a bit hard to take. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that I don't think it's because he "hates women". I think he's probably trying to save money whilst pushing through his own personal ethical agenda. I also don't like that, because I don't always like being told what to do :-p

 

So yeah, murky. I don't know. The Republicans and Democrats have been flip-flopping on this issue for years. I guess it's just a good thing I'm not in politics :-p Not a single thing would ever be accomplished :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, it is because I try to respect other people's right to choose that I feel I have to try to respect their views in coming to those choices. So, for example, if someone is against abortion, I don't want to get all up in their face and tell them they're wrong, wrong, wrong. I want them to have their space, and me to have mine, and a free flow of information between us.

 

​agreed. the problem is, the 'pro life' camp are almost always pro meddling. that bonus layer actually makes the question of the rightful limits of state intervention in personal affairs the central issue.

 

i have a great deal of respect for anyone being uncomfortable with the idea of abortion or against it on principle. i have never bought into the arguments that claim to prove the foetus isnt a real human before a certain stage. i put these in the same category as 'insects dont feel pain' or 'certain animals dont have emotions' or similar areas in which science that is FAR from conclusive is often misused to add credence to what are, in truth, convenient assumptions. "look, its only a blob, it doesnt even look like a person yet, it cant possibly have feelings, nor a scrap of the intrinsic worth we ordinarily ascribe to slightly older humans". BULLSHIT! in other words, i am comfortable erring on the side of abortion at any stage after fertilisation being an act of murder. certainly, the notion of abortion as a form of retroactive contraception is utterly repugnant to me. however, i also believe that there are circumstances in which it is morally justified to kill a fledgling human life.

 

but none of that matters. or it shouldnt, anyway. even were i against abortion in all circumstances i do not think any person or government should have the right to outlaw it. when it comes to a process occurring inside a woman's womb, the sanctity of personal liberty should hold sway over all other concerns. there should be some hoops to jump through, fairly aggressive education, some checks and balances to dissuade flippant terminations, and thats it. exactly the same as with euthanasia.

militant anti-abortionists are scum.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Militant pro-abortionists are worse.

 

Abortion shouldn't be available for lazy people using it as a retroactive contraceptive. It should be available only to those who need it, ie rape victims, the very young, and in cases where there's a good chance the baby won't have good quality of life due to physical or mental defect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do understand ( I think ) Trumps veto on the spending of Government dollars to pay for abortion counselling etc. of peoples

in other countries being given help from American charity groups.

 

I do understand the push to cut off taxpayer funded abortions within America, but here, is where it gets murky for me.

 

I guess, for me, there's no real easy answer. I support education and access to resources to help people have a greater chance at making a more informed choice. I think restricting access to services that affect women more than men (abortions) is a bit hard to take. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that I don't think it's because he "hates women". I think he's probably trying to save money whilst pushing through his own personal ethical agenda. I also don't like that, because I don't always like being told what to do :-p

 

I too support education. It's critical. But from where these changes are coming from in the history of time, what Trump is doing is not actually

stopping people from being educated. When US private Aid groups go overseas to offer succour, Trump does not want the US Government paying

for the overseas countries to be educated about, or supplied with abortions, anymore.

To my mind, that's fair enough thinking. I mean these countries would already have had some benefits given from various Aid groups already.

The information is already out there, isn't it ? And the other thing too is that there are a number of States within the US that could really use

the same dollars spent on them. This for me, is why I hope he would override Pence's public stance and really take care of the needs of those

in the US that are really in need.

 

 

 

 

i have a great deal of respect for anyone being uncomfortable with the idea of abortion or against it on principle. i have never bought into the arguments that claim to prove the foetus isnt a real human before a certain stage. i put these in the same category as 'insects dont feel pain' or 'certain animals dont have emotions' or similar areas in which science that is FAR from conclusive is often misused to add credence to what are, in truth, convenient assumptions. "look, its only a blob, it doesnt even look like a person yet, it cant possibly have feelings, nor a scrap of the intrinsic worth we ordinarily ascribe to slightly older humans". BULLSHIT! in other words, i am comfortable erring on the side of abortion at any stage after fertilisation being an act of murder. certainly, the notion of abortion as a form of retroactive contraception is utterly repugnant to me. however, i also believe that there are circumstances in which it is morally justified to kill a fledgling human life.

 

I feel abortion should be legal in every country in every State of every country :) It's a surgery that could and does often save the life of the female

needing / wanting it. Whether the " save " is a physical of that moment "save " or a protracted " save " that will help her in her future life; and to have a child

when one is wanted.

I'm quite over the pro-lifers ( or anyone ) calling it murder. Seriously get back to me on that when the torture of young babies / children is completely

and utterly stopped ... EVERYWHERE. And now I can almost hear you say @~thehung that, " one act doesn't cancel the other " ... and you'd be right,

but I'm not perfect, and the new unborn foetus has less claim on my imperfect view.

 

 

 

Militant pro-abortionists are worse.

 

Abortion shouldn't be available for lazy people using it as a retroactive contraceptive. It should be available only to those who need it, ie rape victims, the very young, and in cases where there's a good chance the baby won't have good quality of life due to physical or mental defect.

Agreed.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​​well, erring on the side of the gestational blob being a living human when a legal abortion is performed, i wouldnt call it "murder" in the legal sense, but rather a permissible form of homicide. i also detest the way the pro-meddlers use the word in an attempt to place sentimentalism above pragmatism, but at the same time, i dont like euphemisms that aid denialism of hard truths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×