Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pro-choice is a term contemporary people use to denote support for legalized abortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
You asked me what pro-choice meant and I answered you. I'll be even more clear and say I fully subscribe to pro-choice meaning what I highlighted in blue bold above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northnut
No, you didn't answer. Again, what is pro-choice?
I stated what pro-choice means in the contemporary parlance. Colloquialism. Pro-choice is an idiom directly understood within the context of Roe vs Wade and the abortion debate.
colloquialism (kəˈləʊkwɪəˌlɪzəm) — n 1. a word or phrase appropriate to conversation and other informal situations 2. the use of colloquial words and phrases
Quote:
And for the record, don't ever assume anything about me or anyone else on this forum for that matter.
You may wish to be my God and tell me what I can think, infer, or assume. However, you are not my God.
I can draw inferences from person's statements as well as their patterns of ideological and political views in terms of their militancy.
Inductive and deductive forms of logic are both valid forms of reasoning.
In simple terms, especially as used in the sciences, we can differentiate the two logical forms of reasoning as such:
Deductive: X will happen.
Inductive: X will likely happen.
Science uses both but most often it uses inductive logic.
So, through patterns of your reasoning, your militancy for all and every liberal proposition, I can infer from and inductively reason what you likely would have supported if you were living and submerged in the liberal Germany society of circa 1930. National Socialism.
Too many big words for you? The content is actually quite interesting, but I can tell it would be too muh brain-strain for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
Your comment was directed to my statement above which you quoted. You basically implied my statement was false and that in fact prior to Re vs Wade American women as whole did not legally have the right to give birth to their children.
From your link I got this from the first 2 paragraphs. The only portion of the article I read.
Exactly how did you--or that article--contradict my statement that prior to the Roe vs Wade ruling women in United States had the right to give birth to their children--except for some women under the eugenics movement that swept the United States?
You didn't contradict me neither did that article.
However, I'm sure you pull that article up as a routine objection to pro-life comments about Roe vs Wade.
Apparently, your education has not helped you figure out state laws and state rights as opposed to federally protected rights. The Roe vs Wade ruling effectively made it federal law that all states in Union must allow legalized abortion.
I think it's your "education" on the subject that is woefully insufficient. When I say I had to go over some of the Justices comments on the Roe vs Wade ruling that states just that. Don't read into that the Dred Scott ruling or first time drunk driving offenses in Milwaukee being a misdemeanor.
Erm, apparently it doesn't compute with you that states can, have, and continue to add restrictions to Roe v. Wade.
supine, you must be a man. you can think women are baby making machines all you want. thankfully that choice is up to the woman.
Yes, I'm male. I think humans are sexually reproducing animals and that male sperm fertilizing the female egg is the method by evolutionary design by which our species is propagated. And I don't regard that as a political or ideological statement. Merely a statement accepting life in terms of that natural world.
I think it's more of a emotionally charged political statement to use the phrase "women are baby making machines" in the context of the question you asked. I'll leave that rhetoric to lawyers and the judges and politicians they become inside the United States.
Not that lawyers, judges, and politicians can't be noble people, nor do I mean to totally write off their professions as something unworthy.
I had a lawyer that in a certain way really saved my life. I also am an acquaintance of a DA that is a very good man that seeks to use is knowledge of law and his position in the prosecutors office for good as best he can--working within the means of the law.
Having listened to a couple interviews of Justice Scalia I have come to admire him. I don't know if there are issues and views he and I would disagree on but I do admire him.
Erm, apparently it doesn't compute with you that states can, have, and continue to add restrictions to Roe v. Wade.
Restrictions are modifications but abortion is a federally protected right in the United States. No state can according to federal law, completely outlaw abortion.
I stated what pro-choice means in the contemporary parlance. Colloquialism. Pro-choice is an idiom directly understood within the context of Roe vs Wade and the abortion debate.
You may wish to be my God and tell me what I can think, infer, or assume. However, you are not my God.
I can draw inferences from person's statements as well as their patterns of ideological and political views in terms of their militancy.
Inductive and deductive forms of logic are both valid forms of reasoning.
In simple terms, especially as used in the sciences, we can differentiate the two logical forms of reasoning as such:
Deductive: X will happen.
Inductive: X will likely happen.
Science uses both but most often it uses inductive logic.
So, through patterns of your reasoning, your militancy for all and every liberal proposition, I can infer from and inductively reason what you likely would have supported if you were living and submerged in the liberal Germany society of circa 1930. National Socialism.
Man your posts are a bore. And never do they answer a question, they simply go in circles. You may think you're confusing people with the long nonsensical posts but you're not. Now, you told that other poster what she stated as pro-choice was not. Why not answer the question once & for all.
If you're mentally challenged when it comes to understanding basic English, if you have poor and limited reading comprehension, you can ask one of the female conservatives (if you're female and feel more comfortable receiving tutoring from a person of your same sex) on this board to help you with your reading. Self improvement is not a bad thing, and one of the conservative ladies might be willing to take you under her wing. There is no shame in admitting a functional illiteracy. Over 20% of the adult population of Milwaukee are supposedly functionally illiterate. Meaning they have great difficulty with reading comprehension. You are not alone.
If you're mentally challenged when it comes to understanding basic English, if you have poor and limited reading comprehension, you can ask one of the female conservatives (if you're female and feel more comfortable receiving tutoring from a person of your same sex) on this board to help you with your reading. Self improvement is not a bad thing, and one of the conservative ladies might be willing to take you under her wing. There is no shame in admitting a functional illiteracy. Over 20% of the adult population of Milwaukee are supposedly functionally illiterate. Meaning they have great difficulty with reading comprehension. You are not alone.
Restrictions are modifications but abortion is a federally protected right in the United States. No state can according to federal law, completely outlaw abortion.
They don't need to, all they need to do is make it totally inaccessible, as they have already done in a number of states. Add ridiculous procedural delays, as they have already done in a number of states. Add gestational limits, as they have already done in a number of states, etc.
Every child if given the chance is a wanted child. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby... unless you convince the mother through propaganda that her child is unwanted..and that some how a new human being brought to earth is a detriment. All abortion doctors are fully aware they are destroying life- so are professional soldiers. You can not have it both ways ...you either create life or you destroy it. There is no middle ground. What pro-abortionists seem to think is - Human beings are just dumb animals that can not control their drive to breed..and that only they can curb that natural instinct after the fact- Pro-abortion people do not respect the yet to be born- nor do they really respect fully formed adult human beings....If they did they would not look at them as mere animals.
Really? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of kids waiting to be adopted. I wonder how many spend their whole life in foster care going from home to home never truly being loved or wanted. Can we please do something about these kids who are already here. You don't want them to be aborted but you don't care what happens to them after that. Sorry, makes no sense to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly how did you--or that article--contradict my statement that prior to the Roe vs Wade ruling women in United States had the right to give birth to their children--except for some women under the eugenics movement that swept the United States?
