CNN Analyst Says ‘Women’s March Isn’t About Women, It’s About Liberalism’

I'm going to delete all the psuedo-intellectual crap you posted because it didn't really answer any of my points.

I'll just address this one. I think we already have too many people on this planet. I think the world needs to control its population growth.

But you skipped my point. You either have to believe that all these women just got pregnant for the sole purpose of keeping the newly minted abortion clinics in business... or that they were having just as many pregnancies but they were dealing with the unwanted ones in other ways. The numbers of babies actually born would indicate the latter is true.

 

I do find it rather odd that you would make such a claim, as I am definitely not an "intellectual"--and have never suggested (either implicitly or explicitly) that I am.

Then we disagree. Fundamentally.

(By the way, I am emphatically not a globalist--in any realm of my thinking. And I am certain that I shall never be one.)

I did not skip it, at all.

I asked you if you do not believe that it is possible that another factor--one that does not immediately come to mind--may instead be at play here.

"The rooster crows, and then the sun rises; therefore, the rooster's crowing must have caused the sun to rise."

That appears to sum up your logic, in this regard.

 

Scientific advancements dont matter if they dispute your agenda got you.

 

Well, perhaps we can actually agree on something.

At least, I hope so.

I would fully agree with the so-called "Twenty-Week Rule": After a doctor determines that a woman is more than 20 weeks pregnant, she could not receive an abortion (except in the so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest, or a serious danger to the life of the mother).

But once an unborn child is fully recognizable as a human, abortion would no longer remain an option.

How does that sound to you?

Or are you a doctrinaire abortion-on-demand type?

 

All Liberalism masquerading as a Womens March. Seems the Pretend Women were outraged that there were too many "White CIS" (whatever the (*)(*)(*)(*) that is...maybe real Women?) Women were there. Real Women who might have a pro life outlook, not wanted...Men in dresses..Wanted at "Womens" march?

Nothing but foolish Liberalism on parade. Can the Left just go away already?

http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/01/24/transgenders-angry-womens-march-had-too-many-white-cis-women

 

World population is over 7 billion now, projected to be almost 15 billion by 2100. Yeah, babies are getting their asses kicked alright...

 

They're being butchered by the thousands. It's an evil sick world and ignorance is rampant and on display right here.

 

What's ignorant, sick and evil is advocating population expansion when we can't feed what we already have.

 

The answer to overpopulation isn't murdering the innocent. Education on birth control.

 

No, guy, you see, if you had actually been paying attention when thinking that "Fallacy Files" is a source of argument, you'd have heard of Occam's Razor.

The simplest answer is usually the right one.

If the birth rate didn't drop when abortion was legalized, then abortions were happening whether they were legal or not.

Just like prohibition didn't stop people from drinking. Just like the war on drugs doesn't stop people from getting high. just like the prostitution laws don't keep people from selling their bodies.

All Roe v. Wade did was get rid of laws no one was following or enforcing at that point. And that probably would have been fine, if the Christian Right didn't need an issue after "We got to let black people into our churches now?" 'How about Abortion?" another God-Nut said.

 

I'm a "The only people who should make this decision are the woman and her doctor, because it isn't any of my business." type of guy.

I'm a "I'm all for legal abortion because I don't want a bunch of Bible Thumping Sky Fairy Worshipers telling ANYONE how to live their lives" type of guy.

To the point, the 1% of abortions that happen after week 20 (when the fetus STILL isn't viable) happen for good medical reasons, usually because the fetus has some kind of horrible deformity.

 

No, they don't make it okay for the Government to tell a woman what to do with her body because an imaginary pixie in the sky said something was bad.

 

So science is a pixie in the sky.. Funny stuff...

 

Actually, I am very well aware of Occam's Razor (a.k.a. "Ockham's Razor).

But I will readily admit that I have never heard of anything called "Fallacy Files."

Do you seriously wish to have a discussion--or merely to launch ad hominem attacks upon your opponent?

Put another way: Do you view those with whom you disagree as The Loyal Opposition--or as The Enemy?

I do hope you will answer, without any tap-dancing around the question.

There are at least two possible reasons for laws:

One is to halt (or at least diminish) socially unacceptable behavior.

The other is to express society's collective outrage at such behavior.

And many of us remain outraged at the promiscuous use of abortion (otherwise known as abortion on demand).

Well, we now know that you believe (1) that all--or at least, most--Christians are racists; and (2) that to believe in anything religious is to be a "God-Nut" (with emphasis, I suppose, upon the latter word).

So from this point forward, I will just consider the source...

 

Non-responsive.

It would certainly appear that you are not merely irreligious, but acutely anti-religious.

(Oh, by the way, it is emphatically not for religious reasons that I oppose convenience abortions; it just happens that the religious beliefs of some--including, foremost, Catholics and fundamentalists--dovetail with my own beliefs. Put another way: It is not because of religious sects or denominations that we have laws against, say, thievery; it just happens that our laws dovetail with religious teachings in this regard.)

Whereas I really do not know if your percentage is correct, I will say this: The mere fact that an unborn child has some "horrible deformity" is hardly a good reason to kill him (or her).

And to assert that after 20 weeks, an unborn child "STILL isn't viable" (caps in original) is simply untrue.

Less than 20 months ago, Rep. Ralph Abraham testified: "As a doctor, I know and I can attest that...scientific research [is] showing that babies can indeed feel pain at 20 weeks, if not before."

 

I will be very clear. I consider most of you to be what Lenin called "Useful Idiots". You see, you all keep voting Republican, no matter how bad they screw thing ups and worse, how bad they make things for the (white) working class.

It's why in the last 40 years, the Big Corporations have managed to get Free Trade, dismantle the unions, roll back workers rights, a lot of you are working two jobs now...

Meanwhile, Abortion is still legal. Gay Marriage is legal. You still can't impose prayer in school or tell kids in biology class about "Talking Snakes" as an alternative to evolution.

But they keep telling you that they are right with Jesus and that welfare person wants half your cookie and you guys keep eating it up.

(And, no, I don't mean you personally, I'm sure you are one of the "smart" right wingers. No, really! )

Society needs to keep its outrage to itself and mind it's own business. The problem is, abortions are like lawyers. Everyone hates them, until they need one.

No, I'm talking about that branch of Christianity that voted for slavery and then segregation, and when those things weren't cool anymore, they said, "Well, what about abortion?" You see, before the 1970's, abortion wasn't a big deal to them. It was considered a "Catholic Thing". (And the Catholics, outside of their clergy, never considered it a big deal)

But when it became pretty clear that they were losing the whole segregation argument, they needed a new issue to keep the useful idiots voting against their own economic interests.

 

It's about wanting privilege. As is BLM. As is LGBT and essentially every present day civil rights movement.

 

No, just not the answer you wanted to hear. You see, I would trust a guy with a medical degree and the owner of the uterus the fetus is in to be the best judges of whether an abortion is appropriate or not. I would have less trust in someone who whips out a book of bronze age superstitions and tries to pretend some of it is relevant today.

Yeah, 12 years of Catholic education will do that to you.

The point is, murder and thievery are considered universally wrong. Abortion isn't. There isn't even a bible verse that specifically prohibits it. Causing a miscarriage wasn't even a capital offense in the bible (Unlike things like being gay or working on the Sabbath, which the Vindictive Sky Pixie of the Levant thought you should totally die for doing.)

The earliest a child has survived a premature birth is 22 weeks. Almost no one has abortions after 22 weeks.

As if they feel pain, I have to say, so what? They'd feel a lot less pain during an abortion than they would in a lifetime with Brittle Bone Disease or Spina Bifida or Tay Sachs disease or Down Syndrome.

Oh, and not to mention, if a working class child is born with one of these diseases, it's not like you right wingers are all rushing up to subsidize the families. Not when there are rich people who need tax breaks so they can buy dancing horses.

You are pretty fast to bankrupt a family for your "moral beliefs".

 

I think I have my answer here: You do not consider Republicans (or conservatives) to represent The Loyal Opposition, but rather, to represent The Enemy.

But it may not be very soon. (Oddly, "progressives" seem to believe that any steps that America has made to the left simply cannot be reversed. Well, we shall see...)

Are you some sophomoric twentysomething?

Seriously, I do get that impression...

Society has every right to express its collective outrage; and indeed, it should do so, as that is one of the (quite important) functions of the law.

At one time, slavery--and then segregation--were widely considered normal. And, as a rule, I am very slow to attempt to overturn the norm.

In these cases, however, human rights were being trampled upon; so I would certainly make an exception here.

Are you essentially a Marxist? (Your continual reference to "useful idiots"--to describe anyone with whom you disagree--makes me wonder...)

 

She is correct it was not a woman's march it was a feminist march.

Feminism is not all women nor does it represent all women.

 

So, you do not really wish to consider whether society should consider--on a purely objective basis--whether an unborn child is fully human; but rather, just leave it to the judgment of the doctor in question (who would profit from the abortion) and the woman in question (who would find it the more convenient thing to do).

I will reiterate that my belief is wholly predicated upon rational evidence--not upon biblical teachings (although you characterization of the Bible as "a book of ronze [A]ge superstitions" is thoroughly anti-religious)...

This seems typical of liberals: Take no responsibility for yourself; just blame others...

No, the point is that American society--not necessary the rest of the world--considers abortion to be wrong. (At least, it did before there were so many militant humanists; and many still feel that way.)

Very recently, quadruplets were born (by Caesarean section) after just 20 weeks.

That is certainly a cavalier (and heartless) statement...

Again, you resort to an ad hominem attack upon others, to try to establish your point...

In just what sort of moral system is a human life worth less than money, anyway--any amount of money?

 

It's not viable, it isn't "fully human". And, yes, I would think that any woman having an abortion at 20 weeks is doing it for a better reason for "convenience". It's probably the most heart-wrenching decision they'll ever have to make. The rest of us need to mind our own business.

oh, I'm thoroughly anti-religious. And, no, your evidence isn't 'rational'.

Not at all... it's was just after 12 years of being taught a bunch of bs morality by frustrated lesbians, you realize how screwed up religion actually is.

Again, prior to Roe, Abortion laws were like the prostitution laws. Everyone tsk-tsk, but everyone knew where to get one if they needed one. Here's the thing before we "humanists" got rid of the dumb laws, women were never arrested for having abortions and abortion providers were only arrested when they messed up and injured the woman.

You dishonestly left out the other half of my statement about how these children will suffer a lot more from the list of horrible diseases that usually prompt late abortions.

So let's be honest, what is more "cruel". An abortion on a fetus which may or may not have a fully developed pain receptors, or a short lifetime of a baby who is born with brittle bone disease, being in pain every day?

Uh, reality check time. Children cost money. People do their family planning around their finances, not the other way around.

so, yeah, telling a working class family, "You are going to have this baby with this horrible disease who will die within five years of being born, and you will end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on medical treatments...and, oh, yeah, we just repealed the ACA!!!!"

That's where I would suggest that these moralistic wingnuts do something anatomically impossible.

 

Actually, I used to vote Republicans for years. Then one day, I got royally screwed over by an employer.... who announced he could do that because "he didn't have to deal with a union!"

As I've explained, abortions are going to happen no matter what the law is. The real question is, are you guys going to awaken a sleeping giant by angering a lot of women (many of them Republican) by trying to make their bodies property of the state?

Sorry, well into my 50's and tired of dealing with moralistic blowhards...

But you want to enslave women by making them have sick babies they don't want. How is that not trampling on their human rights?

Naw, man, I'm a pragmatist. You see, when the rich got really scared of the commies, they actually let us have a real, honest to God middle class back in the 1960's. I was old enough to remember it, and it was kind of cool.

And pretty much every since then, they've been playing on racial, religious and sexual fears of the useful idiots to do backsies on those.

 

Yeah I recall being forced into a union as a young man, paying those monthly dues for year after year and then the one time I needed union help being told that the union president and his key staff were vacationing in Hawaii on the dues I payed and that maybe they would consent to review my case when they all got back and sobered up . . . maybe. Oddly enough that was the last time I allowed myself to get suckered into a union. Go figure.

 

Well, that is what Roe claimed.

But since we are debating whether Roe was decided correctly, it does seem a bit like question begging to cite Roe as evidence of...well, anything.

If it truly is not, then I am amenable--very amenable--to changing my position, as regarding abortion--or anything else, for that matter.

But exactly how do you conclude that my view is not entirely rational?

I really do not know what that is supposed to mean...

At best, that is a tu quoque fallacy. (The fact that some people acted badly, while denouncing the action in question, does not invalidate the denunciation. It may demonstrate the hypocrisy of some--but nothing more than that.)

There was nothing at all "dishonest" about it. I am editing your statements in these responses, also--as I do with all people.

The former.

Although, your assertion that the unborn child "may not" have "pain receptors" is really a dodge; and that is dishonest.

Actually, I would imagine that most children are born, not because of "family planning," but because the condom broke--or there was no condom at all. (The so-called "rhythm method" is not very reliable.)

You speak as though ObamaCare (a.k.a. "the ACA") were divinely inspired.

Oh, yeah: You really do not believe in divinity.

Anyway, I would say that very few people are in favor of repealing it without simultaneously replacing it with something better.

Which indicates that your long suit is unabashed rage--not critical thinking...