Random Political comments...
- Thread starter Bliss
- Start date
Tony Soprano
Moderator
Tony Soprano
Moderator
Tony Soprano
Moderator
Ol'Skool Classic
Well-Known Member
RicardoCooper
Well-Known Member
Because nothing says feminist liberation like being able to murder your fetus at will.
RicardoCooper
Well-Known Member
Black men are slowly breaking ranks with the Dems, but another demographic will never quit them.
Thump
Well-Known Member
Her analogy is a logical fallacy (hey that rhymed) The things that she is comparing are literally the opposite of each other. "Pulling the plug" means to stop using any methods or devices to keep someone alive who would otherwise die. Abortion is using methods and devices to end the life of someone who would otherwise survive.
Tony Soprano
Moderator
Maybe it's just me however I will always believe that a woman has every right to choose what she wants to do with her own body.
If I'm not married to her what do I care? Her body her choice. I'd much rather mind my own business and keep it moving.
Individuals who do not possess fallopian tubes, ovaries, and a uterus shouldn't dictate what the individuals who have those body parts do with them.
I say all of this because I wouldn't want the government telling me what I can or cannot do with my dick. Fair exchange is no robbery.
Last edited:
Thump
Well-Known Member
I'm pro-life always have been, always will be. However, I was only commenting on the fallacy of the type of argument in that person's tweet.
Tony Soprano
Moderator
Fair enough. You're completely entitled to your opinion as an American citizen and I have to respect that.
I just don't believe in trying to legislate morality or being hypocritical about religious beliefs.
A woman's God given right to choose simply makes more sense to me which is why I have always been pro-choice.
Tony Soprano
Moderator
Thump
Well-Known Member
Your opinion is valid, and I've always felt one of the greatest gifts that God gave us was the ability to make our own choices. As I said before I will always be "pro-life" but I'd rather call myself anti-abortion, to be completely honest I kind of hate the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice". They are just marketing slogans designed by opposing groups, (many with deceitful agendas) to obfuscate facts and to demonize opposing ideologies. One side makes it sound like you are against life if you want women to have freedom from government intrusion into their personal choices. The other side makes it sound like people who sincerely believe that human lives are in danger are sexist, old-fashioned, zealots.
Fools, the lot of them.
I've never been so foolish as to imagine legislating morality would be possible or functional in this world, I've long since given up the idea that people have the ability to govern morality, so I leave it in God's hands.
Tony Soprano
Moderator
Tony Soprano
Moderator
bodhesatva
Well-Known Member
So I've mentioned before that I'm a nurse, and here's a true (and long) story of a doctor friend of mine: he's a clinical neurologist, and he had a young female patient with a brain tumor. When the mother first brought the girl to him, he recommended several aggressive treatment options, but the mother of the child decided to take her to a "natural healing" quack, because the real treatments were (and still are) invasive and exhausting.
He didn't hear anything for a year, but eventually the mother came back because -- unsurprisingly -- the "natural" healing wasn't working. When my friend reexamined the girl, the cancer had progressed, and most therapies were no longer possible.
The girl unfortunately passed away, and afterwards, the mother of the child sued my friend, not the "natural" healing guy, for not saving her daughter's life.
My friend was not found liable, but I think about that story often. Why sue my friend instead of the quack healer, you may ask? After all, it was the quack who gave the girl bogus treatments that did nothing. And the answer is that if the mother sued the "natural" healing quack, she would have to admit to herself that she was fooled by him, and that she didn't listen to the real neurologist's advice, and that in some small way, she was responsible for her own daughter's death. The girl might have lived if the mother just listened to the doctor from the start.
That's an awful thing to have to live with, and I'm guessing she just couldn't take it. Humans can only stand so much before they break, and admitting you were partially responsible for the death of your own child is beyond the breaking point for a lot of people.
And I mentioned this in the politics thread because I think this story is related, in a weird way, to the Trump phenomenon. I think a lot of people know he's awful, and deep down, they know they've been fooled, but admitting that at this point is just more than they can bear. Nobody likes to play the fool, and nobody likes to admit they're the bad guys of the story -- so they double down. That's not a conservative thing in particular, by the way; people in general hate feeling like suckers who made a terrible mistake. It's more than most human minds can admit to.
He didn't hear anything for a year, but eventually the mother came back because -- unsurprisingly -- the "natural" healing wasn't working. When my friend reexamined the girl, the cancer had progressed, and most therapies were no longer possible.
The girl unfortunately passed away, and afterwards, the mother of the child sued my friend, not the "natural" healing guy, for not saving her daughter's life.
My friend was not found liable, but I think about that story often. Why sue my friend instead of the quack healer, you may ask? After all, it was the quack who gave the girl bogus treatments that did nothing. And the answer is that if the mother sued the "natural" healing quack, she would have to admit to herself that she was fooled by him, and that she didn't listen to the real neurologist's advice, and that in some small way, she was responsible for her own daughter's death. The girl might have lived if the mother just listened to the doctor from the start.
That's an awful thing to have to live with, and I'm guessing she just couldn't take it. Humans can only stand so much before they break, and admitting you were partially responsible for the death of your own child is beyond the breaking point for a lot of people.
And I mentioned this in the politics thread because I think this story is related, in a weird way, to the Trump phenomenon. I think a lot of people know he's awful, and deep down, they know they've been fooled, but admitting that at this point is just more than they can bear. Nobody likes to play the fool, and nobody likes to admit they're the bad guys of the story -- so they double down. That's not a conservative thing in particular, by the way; people in general hate feeling like suckers who made a terrible mistake. It's more than most human minds can admit to.
Last edited:
Tony Soprano
Moderator
