End of Roe Vs Wade?
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Aren't you glad your mom was part of the ten percent?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Red, herring.
Do you see how dumb you are? to be continuing this discussion? without stopping to figure out why I'm saying, that you're getting dumber with every post now?
Red herring!
That's now THREE logical fallacies you've employed in the past like five posts.
On record.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It is not.
For the safety of the mother's life and limb, I don't know a single state that's advocating for banning surgical abortive termination of a viable pregnancy in defense of the mother's life and limb.
Not a single one.
This (stupid) tweet is a LIE.
You fell for it.
Stupid.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Thanks for clearing up that one.
Now all the promiscuous people just have to go and get cancer, and they can resume their promiscuous lifestyle without consequences, which is actually what this whole controversy's ever been about ever since Roe.
There's going to be a run on tobacco stocks. And I would short sun block manufacturers.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It would be nice if this sort of rhetoric was as successful as it should be, but alas.
People just want to be promiscuous.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Why do you automatically assume promiscuity? A monogamous married couple may have no wish to start a family or not until they're ready etc. Do you condemn contraception methods?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I'm not "assuming" anything. I know how Roe came about, it wasn't an accident, the exact type of case that was appealed to the Supreme Court back then, this kind of strategic appellate gerrymandering's a tale as old as time.
But on the ground, it's absolutely 80% abortions being due to plain old promiscuity. Just back up contraception. And that is awful. And that's why we celebrate the overturning of Roe.
Off topic. Supra.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
He's a troll
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, that's simply your opinion and my question was directly related and directly on topic so it shouldn't be difficult for you to answer?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
While you saying it might be accurate, him saying it is going to be classic.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
What if it's 50% of abortions that are just back up contraception? Is that like somehow less awful?
It's awful Arthur, that so many unborn babies are sacrificed on the altar of what amounts to a desire for zero-consequence promiscuity. It's a crime against nature, like how having human slaves is a crime against nature.
You have certain desires. Fine, great. In order to achieve your desires, you must steamroll another human's rights? TIME OUT.
Overturning Roe is nothing more than a big TIME OUT.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I'd put it at much higher than 80%. I guesstimate about 98%
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
This is why I'm asking if you condemn any form of contraception, I know where you stand with abortion obviously. Is it promiscuous to you if a monogamous married couple have regular sex but use contraception as they either don't want kids or not until further down the line? The parameters for what you consider promiscuous behaviour would be helpful in context here.
Oh, so you're cool with an abortion exception for the life of the mother?
Thanks for clearing up that one.
Slavery was accepted by the world of ignorant unbelievers then just like abortion, evolution, Trump/Russian collusion, and global warming are accepted by ignorant unbelievers today.
The problem isn't the contraceptives (unless they inherently kill the human embryo, like with Plan B).
The problem is the "sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman," AKA promiscuity.
I guarantee that most of the women who have/had abortions are 1) not married or in a committed relationship, 2) have or have had more than one sexual partner, either currently or in the past, and 3) are on some sort of government welfare program that makes it easy for them to avoid finding a man to provide and care for her and any children they might have.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, I was already familiar with your take on contraception in fairness so none of this is news to me. You aren't in a position to guarantee what is nothing more than an opinion however and your latter was and still is bizarre. It's up to a woman if she wants a relationship with a man regardless of whether she's working or not and is hardly relevant to abortion. There's lots of single woman parents for starters.
Let every man and woman go to God and get His guidance on private matters that are nobody else's business.