Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.define straight 2.Denver democrat council woman post on government site all democrats infected with coronovirus should attend every MAGA event 3.Democrats refuse to vote on relief money unless $35 million goes to Kennedy center 4.democrats and associated press close believeallwomen twitter account after Biden sexual assault case came to light 5.democrats refused to vote on relief bill unless $25 million was secured for house paychecks Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
on the basis of claims without evidence. There is no evidence for the soul existing. Anyone who believes in souls is totally free to not have an abortion, but no one should be forced to carry a child, because of other people's religion.
There has to be "SOMETHING" that makes the human stand apart from the rest of the molecule arrangements. So what would you call it? Some call it a soul, what would you call that special unique object or influence?
There is enough on YouTube to explain that in the finest of detail.
I can address specific questions about it, but I wouldn't know where to begin,
if you ask questions that show you don't understand the slightest thing about it.
In any case, that something that makes humans do things that a rock can not
is biology and a brain. It allows LIFE to 'skip' without being thrown across a lake.
When your brain gets damaged, your ability to walk, talk and think gets damaged
or destroyed. Isn't a soul supposed to be immaterial? Than why is it affected by material damage? Why can that special unique thing be damaged if it is immaterial?
I imagine those perverts were sniffing like ol joe when they found Melaina's panties .
Your statement that you fear left wing idiocy and stupidity is on you. Your feelings don't define half of this country. However, I can bring up the perceived head of the Republican party, Trump, and we can, FACTUALLY, say," The right wing and, in particular, the Republicans, are stupidly idiotic, supporting this jerk and his political ideas.
2) Many unwanted pregnancies are not caused by the woman being irresponsible, but just because contraception doesn't always work
and often because men force themselves onto them.
3) Most abortions are performed with a pill. Calling that a baby is bullshit,
it's a tiny clump of cells then. Most later abortions are because the pregnancy poses a threat to their health or there are fetal medical conditions or because
the woman didn't have the money earlier. The first two should always be allowed and the last can be prevented by making abortion free.
in an incubator. This consideration goes out the door for fatal fetal malformations. Women are now forced to carry and give birth to malformed babies that have no chance to survive. I cannot imagine much more barbaric practices.
No different than a grub worm becoming a moth.
A egg and a sperm cell meet,and a life begins.
A life that could be the 1 that grows up to cure cancer, or end wars.but if aborted,can do nothing but rot.
There might be medical decisions that come close. Let's say Siamese twins share one heart. The one with the heart is aware and able, the one without a heart is severely mentally disabled and not self-aware. I would agree with the decision to separate the twins and let the one without a heart die. Would you condemn the self-aware twin to suffer from their joined sibling the rest of their life?
Off course it is an ethics question: What has priority; the right of a woman to make a choice about her own body and her future or the further development
of a fertilized egg, zygote or fetus into a new human being.
I know your answer to that ethics question.
What do you think about the Siamese twins ethics question?
And if you think differently about that one, why?
It would be life, because it would be a independently growing, reproducing, continual changing and showing biochemical processes.
I agree that when an egg and a sperm link up, a live cell is created,
but I don't consider it a life. It is a life, when it can independently live.
And even then, that is not an argument against abortion for me.
I see it as the right of a woman to protect herself. That is more important.
Just like you support the right to own guns and use them to kill a self-conscious human being, for self protection or even to protect your property,
I support the right of women to protect their bodies and their future, by killing
a clump of cells, a zygote or a fetus, up to the gestational age where it is dependent on the woman's body to survive.
And I think your support for the right to own guns is less pro-life.
Where as if a crook breaks into my home,and HE or she chooses to TAKE MY LIFE, are you saying I shouldn't be able to choose to live? I should get out of my chair and walk over to them so they can get a better headshot?
Victims of crimes that could be prevented by being armed don't have a choice of being a victim or not unless they are armed to protect themselves. ,nor does the fetus have a choice and they are innocent, unarmed and unable to prevent their deaths.
both are being told their lives don't matter. Strange.
That child was not wanted. In a country that allows abortion, every child knows
that they were at least welcome. American children in the future will have names like; Leak, Oops, Precum, Preme-Jack, Toosoon, Toolate, Rapey, Hangover and Antibiotic.
Down syndrome is not necessarily a reason to abort the pregnancy.
Still a down syndrome child takes extra care and parents should be up to that.
It should be up to the woman/parents if they can take on that responsibility.
If that right is taken away, the country should provide an alternative, like paying
for the lost income, medical costs and compensation for the suffering and then
taking care of the children. If your side takes away abortion rights and doesn't offer
any alternatives, I hope cribs with newborn babies are left on every porch with a
Trump flag in front of it.
The -2% could choose alternatives in a ideal world. as I have said before, the problem people like me have with abortion is the fact women use it like a tummy tuck or a visit to the Bueti shop.
They want to be reckless and uncaring and when "Oopps" a baby,"oh, where's the guy with the coat hanger"?
This is the case in any civilised country.
Religious dictatorships like Saudi Arabia don't respect this.
The Rep POTUS fucks up the country and the next Dem POTUS gets blamed.
History keeps repeating itself.
I think a local highschool janitor would be better than mr magoo.
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 23 minutes
2532 book bans in one school year, impacting 1684 individual books.
It affected more than 4 million students.
The worst offenders were Texas, Florida and Tennessee.
The bans are targeting authors of color and LGBTQ or books
that have main characters of those demographics.
Why are these book bans not a violation of the First Amendment?
You shouldn't be coaxing kids into that lbbtq stuff because they are to young to understand.
under 21,you can't drink,under 18,you can't vote,under 16 you can't drive,under 16 you can't married.But at 4 you can change your sex? Yea right.
when they turn 18,they can go to the dr and learn their options and arrange payments.
They are books by LGBTQ writers. And some have LGBTQ characters.
Who says the books say you can change your sex? Show it!
You only have a point if there is explicit sex in the books. Is there?
You are the one who feels the need to defend violations of the First Amendment.
It's a fact that books are banned. Prove that it's justified.
By the way, the government should not meddle in those things. They should just abide by the first amendment and let teachers decide at what age children have the mental capacity to understand that different people exist.
Also, some books are reportedly from black authors or there are black characters in it. Are the poor fragile little children hurt by the knowledge that black people exist?
You of all people understand that everyone can't control what happens ,that is why there is elected officials, to do our bidding. Some do right ,most do wrong. I commend those officials that see the potential for harmful wording and influences on our young people .They are actually doing the job we ask of them. it is those pacifist that ignore the hazards, anything goes, anything happens ,no one is responsible types that piss me off.
Accusing teachers of grooming is filthy right-wing propaganda.
Yes teachers should decide, because that's how a modern three branches government executes the law. Public schools funded with tax dollars, should
respect the law and the law says 'free speech'.
Parents can decide what children read at home, not in school.
Schools are the last bastion of defense against ignorance and fascism
and I hope secular/liberal people will fight you hard over it.
Who decides which movies children can see?
Stop conflating age restriction with censorship.
If a youngan under 18 does something stupid or gets sick or something, the parents are considered legally responsible for the debts and to provide shelter and food and clothing and such. So why suddenly do the liberals want to take responsibility for what they are taught in school?.
The government should make sure the students are taught history, math, english and home economics. When a student graduates from high school they should have a good idea of what it cost to run a household, how to clean house ,how to spell and how to add and subtract.
Teaching kids that men can have babies and cow farts pollute does nothing benefit the country or the student.
If a kid does not feel comfortable in his own skin, he must need counseling or some medicine. Not being coddled into something that is life changing before he is able to truly understand.
The government is also allowed to regulate education. The government would be allowed to appoint an independent organization to decide on scientific basis what content is not appropriate for children and assign age restrictions.
That is not what they are doing. The are BANNING books, from authors of specific race and sexual orientation, for all ages, based on politically and religiously motivations. That is a clear violation of the first amendment.
"Teaching kids that men can have babies and cow farts pollute does nothing benefit the country or the student."
In one sentence you are denying science on political motives and giving a stupid strawman about allowing children to know that transgender people exist.
In both cases you are demanding to keep the truth from children. And you are talking about coddling children? Just because you don't understand these topics, doesn't mean they are too difficult for the average 10 year old.
And who says the books are only banned for elementary School?
Without evidence your defense is invalid, because the guilt of
violation of the first amendment is already apparent.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...."
Banning books of LGBTQ authors is 'respecting an establishment of religion'.
Freedom of speech! It doesn't matter who is capable of understanding.
If I had children, they would be allowed to read anything, while still respecting its
age restriction. Age restrictions are not determined by difficulty. The philosophy of Emmanuel Kant has no age restriction.
If they were just setting fair age restrictions by maturity standards, determined by
an impartial rating agency, I would not protest.
But they are not doing that, the conservative right-wing government is specifically banning books from colored authors and LGBTQ authors, because of bigotry and religious values. That's against your law. And it would be against the law of basically every (other) first world country. The US is slipping away man, slipping away.
These people that are writing books outside the social norms are considered a bad influence by people in power to make sure it does not affect our children.
Your argument of biology is nonsense. No one is suggesting people can biologically change their SEX. But just how people can be gay or lesbian, people can be transGENDER. It's in their nature and it most likely is biologically determined. They might look like one sex, but feel like the other sex. What you feel you are is called gender identity. You and me are just lucky that we were not born with our gender deviating from our sex. I call it 'lucky', because I'm really not jealous of the struggle they have to go through. You however want to make that struggle even harder, by maintaining and even strengthening the enormous stigma on it. You should have some more compassion, because their is a social stigma on disabled people too, especially in the US. It shows you are lacking imagination, when you cannot understand their challenges, while you are confronted with similar challenges. Why is it so hard for conservatives to imagine how someone suffers. It is really a character trait of conservatives to only understand what other people are going through, when they have experienced it themselves or someone really close to them is suffering.
It's a religiously inspired doctrine to fight people on their sexual preference or their identity.
"are considered a bad influence by people in power"
Exactly, that's the problem. And that's exactly why the First Amendment was written;
to prevent the people in power to decide what are 'bad influences'.
And when you agree with the people in power deciding what are 'bad influences',
you are showing that you either don't understand or disagree with the core principles of your own country. Or you are a hypocrite and you only support free speech for your own ideas, which means you don't support free speech at all.
Trying to change 1's sex to the other ,is something they can decide not to do.
only registered users can see external links
Could these high numbers not be related to the fact that a persons body goes thru alot of changes and perhaps,they jumped the gun so to speak?
only registered users can see external links
“If you are silent about your beliefs because you are worried someone will be offended, then your beliefs are not that important to you, but rather what people think about you is,” it read. “When you stand up for what’s right and true, you will receive both hate and love, but everyone will know what you are fighting for.”
Are you still saying that to gays and lesbians too?
"Just choose to repress and hide your nature all your life"?
Or have you progressed beyond those archaic beliefs,
at least for gays and lesbians?
There are a few people who end up regretting their choices.
That's why people get lots of help when they are thinking about their identity and that's why medical professionals don't do anything irreversible before the age of 18. And even then, it's very well considered whether people should take drastic measures. However, it's just propaganda, that makes you think that many transgenders end up regretting their decisions. It is not clear how many,
but estimates are ranging from less than 1% to as many as 8%.
In any case, my opinion is that it is better to make your own mistakes, than to be denied the freedom to make them. And I think you would agree on that principle,
but you might make an exception for just this issue. Ask yourself why.
People are not silent about their beliefs, but people are getting SILENCED.
People are writing books about their life and the challenges they faced.
Those books are banned, because politicians don't want children to know.
And it's not just books from transgenders, it's also books from black people.
That's worse. At least understand that people cannot chose their color.
Tell me why you would support banning their books.
If you think books of transgender people are harmful to children, you must think that it is possible to talk children into thinking they are transgender. I think that's nonsense. No one could have made me think I was really a girl, especially not by just reading about the concept. How strong are your beliefs that you are a man? People either have doubts about their identity or they have not. If they have, I think it's healthy for them to read about what others like them have experienced.
Do you really think it's more healthy for them to get their feelings suppressed?
I firmly believe liberal parents are grooming their kids to be trans.Just as parents have groomed their kids to be in beauty pageants and sports for decaded. "You are going to play base ball" You are going to ballet" ,You are going to take piano lessons" , "you are not a boy,you are a girl,don't you like this pink dress".
I know you do, because you are 'groomed' to believe that.
It's bullshit! Why would any parent put their children through such pain,
unless the children are actually transgender?
Telling children what to do is a conservative mindset.
It's pure projection, that liberals would be telling their children
what to do and think, because that's what conservatives are doing.
Liberal parents give their children (some) choices. That way children
grow up capable of making choices and value freedom; liberty, liberal.
Conservatives don't like that and that's why 'liberal' is a curse to you.
Liberals actually listen to their children. And if they end up with a boy that likes playing with dolls, they might not rip it out of his little hands and give him a toy car and shout "Boys do not play with dolls!". In your mind, not doing that is grooming. If some boy keeps telling his parents that he is a girl, they might listen to him.
If they allow him to wear a pink dress, that's a really good test to see if he's serious, because his schoolmates will tear him apart for it.
When the now much older boy keeps telling, that he is a girl, at some point liberal parents might take him to a psychologist to determine if he's really transgender. And when a long process confirms they are really dealing with a transgender girl, at some point they might decide he/she can take puberty blockers. That's the maximum gender affirming care that is allowed by law up to the age of 18 and
that is sensible.
Everything else they are telling you are filthy lies. People like Matt Walsh are making lots of money, from telling you what you want to hear, so you can stand outside hospitals to protest against them 'mutilating children', which they are not doing. You have seen no evidence, except Matt Walsh playing some recording
of the right-wing trolls 'Libs of TikTok' speaking with 2 hospital receptionists who just try to transfer them to the right department at the children's hospital.
only registered users can see external links
Where are all those mutilated children? Can you present anything other than
just one or two transgenders who now are saying they regret THEIR decision?
But you are only happy when those kids are forced to shut up by their parents
or taken away by child services to be put with 'proper' conservative parents,
who beat those 'stupid ideas' out of them.
That's what you used to do. And when those children commit suicide, you think "Good, rid yourself and us of your stupid ideas."
Because you don't care about children, but just about your stupid ideas.
The idea that transgenders do not exist, but it's all parents who for some reason like changing boys into girls and girls into boys. Why exactly? For fun?
Grooming means one thing; preparing children for sexual abuse.
Republicans are using that term intentionally, as propaganda.
Just like you were told Russians eat children, during the cold war.
Republicans always need an enemy, because they have nothing else to offer.
Meanwhile it's many Republicans that get caught doing sexual abuse of children.
And you all still keep voting for these horrible pe.do.philes.
I can't look at those pics,1 glance and I still remember it,so I didn't scroll down far enough
How does it relate to tecsan claiming LGBT rights are somehow socialist?
They're not, by the way, socialism is about sharing the benefits of production.
LGBT rights originate from humanist principles of freedom of the individual.
You accused republicans of using propaganda.
to quote,
"Just like you were told Russians eat children, during the cold war.
Republicans always need an enemy, because they have nothing else to offer."
It was fact, and I shared the sad proof.
NOT propaganda as you called it.
Republicans do have enemy's. Have you not noticed a war on conservative radio and tv news? BUT nothing is being done about the liberals lying and ruining peoples reputations?
There was a horrible famine back then, not during the cold war.
Being forced to eat the dead, was not what the propaganda was claiming.
Republicans used such a horrible situation to paint Russians as cannibals.
That's propaganda, even if there is some truth in it.
Do we use such propaganda against Uruguay or it's Old Christians Club rugby union team?
only registered users can see external links
Transgenderism cannot be explained with biology yet, so teachers should just explain the difference between sex and gender, that transgender people exist and what it means.
You want to teach children that some of their schoolmates are not socially acceptable. That's what they did in Germany too, many decades ago. At that time Americans fought against those ideas. You are renouncing the once American value of liberty, that many of your countrymen died for.
only registered users can see external links
Now explain to me how a book that teaches kids to think that people willing to risk their lives by going into harms way to save their lives are menaces is a good thing? That book should be burned.
New Comment Go to top