(04-11-2024 07:18 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  It's almost as if some of you here are pushing for a legitimate civil war, but for the wrong reasons.

If outlawing abortion leads to civil war, then by all means outlaw abortion. We might have a chance then. The problem is, while we're trying to outlaw abortion, the Left will gain complete control of all parts of the government, and the only thing that will get outlawed will be all of our other rights. Including the right to bear arms so we can't start that civil war (see: Australia).

Make no mistake, I am vehemently anti-abortion, but I'm also pragmatic. Committing suicide is also murder and that's what we're talking about doing.

It's a sticky wicket for me, but at the end of the day, my first priority will always be protecting my own, and not some soulless demons that kill their own.

Peace guys, we're on the same side.

(04-11-2024 07:57 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(04-11-2024 07:18 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  It's almost as if some of you here are pushing for a legitimate civil war, but for the wrong reasons.

If outlawing abortion leads to civil war, then by all means outlaw abortion. We might have a chance then. The problem is, while we're trying to outlaw abortion, the Left will gain complete control of all parts of the government, and the only thing that will get outlawed will be all of our other rights. Including the right to bear arms so we can't start that civil war (see: Australia).

Make no mistake, I am vehemently anti-abortion, but I'm also pragmatic. Committing suicide is also murder and that's what we're talking about doing.

It's a sticky wicket for me, but at the end of the day, my first priority will always be protecting my own, and not some soulless demons that kill their own.

Peace guys, we're on the same side.

Ja!!! ... some simply define certain aspects differently...

#posterChild

I refuse to sign it unless irressponsible whores can murder their unwanted babies!




Its filth v non filth.

If can vote for pedo joe at this point i dont wanna be in the same country as you.

Let it burn

Shere and TB4E,

I understand where you are coming from and I don't disgree with your position. But you can't have it, no matter how much you want it.

Going all in on it is going to result in a democrat majority in both houses of congress passing a law to legalize live-birth abortions, and a democrat president signing it. If that's the result you want, then congratulations.

I don't want that result, and I know that the only way to prevent that is to win elections. And I know that you can't win elections running on ideas where 70% of the country disagrees with you. And I don't mean that 70% don't care, I mean that 70% hate your guts.

It's like Barry Goldwater said, the religious right's "my way or the highway" attitude will be the death of the republican party.

Shere and TB4E,

Let me cut to the chase. Do you want to see a law passed that would legalize live-birth abortions? Or, for that matter, a law passed that would say it's okay for a man to use women's rest rooms and locker rooms as long as he claims to be a trans woman?

(04-11-2024 06:59 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 07:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm sorry but this is stupid. To win elections republicans need to run on 60-40 issues, not 30-70 issues. And if you don't win elections, nothing else matters, because you can't do anything without winning elections.

So, to be clear, you're ok with murdering children in the womb if it means winning an election. GTFO. What kind of monstrous position is that?

No, I'm not okay with murdering children in the womb. And you can apologize right now for that unfounded allegation.

But I know that the only way to stop it is to win elections.

(04-09-2024 07:00 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 05:55 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  1865 voting populace is gonna be pissed when they find out.

This is why we need to split. Its time for civil war

Jd just said the silent part outloud.

Prog filth honor nothing.

I'm sick of sharing a country with these people. Let's go ahead and rip the band aid off.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(04-09-2024 10:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 09:31 PM)shere khan Wrote:  So no. Compomise a core belief to win.

It doesn't happen to be a core belief of mine, or of about 70% of the USA population.

Surely a Christian.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(04-11-2024 06:59 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  So, to be clear, you're ok with murdering children in the womb if it means winning an election. GTFO. What kind of monstrous position is that?

Winning elections is the only way to stop murdering children in the womb. Win elections and start slowly moving the tide of public opininon in the direction you want.

Let me get this straight. You favor live-birth abortions. Because that's exactly the result that your position is going to produce.

(04-10-2024 12:46 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Section 13-3603

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm

A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.

Actually, this means the law isn't as DRACONIAN as I thought everyone was claiming it as being:

Yes, i know about the general three criteria people have that have had people allowing for an abortion.

Life, Rape, Incest (now there are those who say Abortion is abortion - don't allow it all, but this isn't aimed at you).

Did you forget what time you were talking about? the 1860s!

Looks like at least one of those was covered for in the 1860's AZ law. Let's remember this was 1860's west.. Where outside of some real villains., Brothels were real.. Rape was not a real consideration (not to say it didnt happen some, but nowhere as portrayed as being a common thing).

In fact, Rapists weren't exactly welcome in most of the west, regardless of what stories you heard. Destroy a lady's birth-carrying chances? Where are the next generations of ranchers and soldiers going to come from?

Incest (between cousins) was first "banned' by law back as far as 1858 (so i'd wager not as prevalent as most people though it to be) as was already under fire for years prior. So honestly, i don't 'think legislatures even considered it.

So referring to this as draconian? It's not as draconian as you guys are making out...

For instance:
Did you know that in the days of the wild west, whenever a woman was called in to question NOT because she was giving birth out of wedlock and being "punished' for being a "Whore"? It's because they wanted to make sure the father paid into taking care of the kid to be part of the town/church/etc or which ever company got the kid down the road.

Why? Because the wild west needed settlers, they needed men and women who could pick up a pistol, rifle, whatever, and know how to use it. They need cowboys to maintain and watch their cattle...

Whether it was to fight off Mexicans, Indians, Unionists, coyotes, bears, mountain lions, whatever...

Abortion was "unwelcome" ALL throughout the west..

now move to today: Oh abortion is illegal,: but..
I'll only allow abortion if the lift of the mother is in question.
Or some are abortion is okay in the instance of "life and rape..."
Some are abortion in the case of 'life of the mother, rape and incest".



And unfortunately the 1860's law didn't cover rape and incest, so some people call it Draconian? They weren't even CONSIDERED at the time as being lawful in itself..

So just maybe you guys start jumping all over each other for "fighting a losing fight" or "because i have principles and you don't". Maybe you need to consider why they chose to apporve the law as is.. and if you don't think it's a good law, ASK them to rewrite it to include whatever clauses would make it a "slow acceptablet to hte public law".

Who's more draconian??? I'd say neither honestly...

Now as for the second half of this thread.. where y'all are ready to turn on each other...


Owl, I respect your thoughts around here a lot.. but this one, youre missing (ast least what I'm reading into Shere's n Tb4e's argument...

So choose when you want to fight for your beliefs, but if you don't pick now? When? When are you going to have the public on your side, if you don't speak up and shout out how WRONG something like abortion is? YOu keep saying, you can't win this fight now.. then when?

Look at society.. Pornography for kids? Transgenders who are actually sexual deviants, but are trying to find a way to be declared normal? Pedophiles? Hollyowood? Epstein? Illegal immigrants killing innocents? Black youths who think bieing gangsters is where it's at? People just stealing in stores in broad daylight?

It gets worse and worse every day..

So if you're not going to fight for it now.. when?

So right now Shere and TB4e have a lot more of respect from me in heir admission of their position in this argument and why they think it should be fought _NOW_, because at least they're trying to get you to fight for it.... (now whether or not they succeed and get you to do so, at least they're TRYING, not just sitting back in the corrner and letting whatever happens without at least trying to rattle some chains.)

So when? When is good neough to fight? That's what they want to know.. whats' going to be good enough to bring Owl out of the shadows and inot the abortion argument? When it's 40/60 likely to fight for?

When do you think you'll get that number? I'm curious to know when you're ready to fight for your beliefs on this one? 40/60? 50/50? 30/70? Never?

I'd like to know too.. cause you just keep letting society erode and erode, and there's never going to be that number to get back to, which implies this is not even a stance you wanted to fight over in the first place and are happy just letting murders of innocent pre-borns happen?

(04-15-2024 05:07 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(04-10-2024 12:46 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Section 13-3603

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm

A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.

Actually, this means the law isn't as DRACONIAN as I thought everyone was claiming it as being:

Yes, i know about the general three criteria people have that have had people allowing for an abortion.

Life, Rape, Incest (now there are those who say Abortion is abortion - don't allow it all, but this isn't aimed at you).

Did you forget what time you were talking about? the 1860s!

Looks like at least one of those was covered for in the 1860's AZ law. Let's remember this was 1860's west.. Where outside of some real villains., Brothels were real.. Rape was not a real consideration (not to say it didnt happen some, but nowhere as portrayed as being a common thing).

In fact, Rapists weren't exactly welcome in most of the west, regardless of what stories you heard. Destroy a lady's birth-carrying chances? Where are the next generations of ranchers and soldiers going to come from?

Incest (between cousins) was first "banned' by law back as far as 1858 (so i'd wager not as prevalent as most people though it to be) as was already under fire for years prior. So honestly, i don't 'think legislatures even considered it.

So referring to this as draconian? It's not as draconian as you guys are making out...

For instance:
Did you know that in the days of the wild west, whenever a woman was called in to question NOT because she was giving birth out of wedlock and being "punished' for being a "Whore"? It's because they wanted to make sure the father paid into taking care of the kid to be part of the town/church/etc or which ever company got the kid down the road.

Why? Because the wild west needed settlers, they needed men and women who could pick up a pistol, rifle, whatever, and know how to use it. They need cowboys to maintain and watch their cattle...

Whether it was to fight off Mexicans, Indians, Unionists, coyotes, bears, mountain lions, whatever...

Abortion was "unwelcome" ALL throughout the west..

now move to today: Oh abortion is illegal,: but..
I'll only allow abortion if the lift of the mother is in question.
Or some are abortion is okay in the instance of "life and rape..."
Some are abortion in the case of 'life of the mother, rape and incest".



And unfortunately the 1860's law didn't cover rape and incest, so some people call it Draconian? They weren't even CONSIDERED at the time as being lawful in itself..

So just maybe you guys start jumping all over each other for "fighting a losing fight" or "because i have principles and you don't". Maybe you need to consider why they chose to apporve the law as is.. and if you don't think it's a good law, ASK them to rewrite it to include whatever clauses would make it a "slow acceptablet to hte public law".

Who's more draconian??? I'd say neither honestly...

Now as for the second half of this thread.. where y'all are ready to turn on each other...


Owl, I respect your thoughts around here a lot.. but this one, youre missing (ast least what I'm reading into Shere's n Tb4e's argument...

So choose when you want to fight for your beliefs, but if you don't pick now? When? When are you going to have the public on your side, if you don't speak up and shout out how WRONG something like abortion is? YOu keep saying, you can't win this fight now.. then when?

Look at society.. Pornography for kids? Transgenders who are actually sexual deviants, but are trying to find a way to be declared normal? Pedophiles? Hollyowood? Epstein? Illegal immigrants killing innocents? Black youths who think bieing gangsters is where it's at? People just stealing in stores in broad daylight?

It gets worse and worse every day..

So if you're not going to fight for it now.. when?

So right now Shere and TB4e have a lot more of respect from me in heir admission of their position in this argument and why they think it should be fought _NOW_, because at least they're trying to get you to fight for it.... (now whether or not they succeed and get you to do so, at least they're TRYING, not just sitting back in the corrner and letting whatever happens without at least trying to rattle some chains.)

So when? When is good neough to fight? That's what they want to know.. whats' going to be good enough to bring Owl out of the shadows and inot the abortion argument? When it's 40/60 likely to fight for?

When do you think you'll get that number? I'm curious to know when you're ready to fight for your beliefs on this one? 40/60? 50/50? 30/70? Never?

I'd like to know too.. cause you just keep letting society erode and erode, and there's never going to be that number to get back to, which implies this is not even a stance you wanted to fight over in the first place and are happy just letting murders of innocent pre-borns happen?

"For instance:
Did you know that in the days of the wild west, whenever a woman was called in to question NOT because she was giving birth out of wedlock and being "punished' for being a "Whore"? It's because they wanted to make sure the father paid into taking care of the kid to be part of the town/church/etc or which ever company got the kid down the road"

You're right about that and it just wasn't in the West ever.

(04-15-2024 06:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2024 06:59 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  So, to be clear, you're ok with murdering children in the womb if it means winning an election. GTFO. What kind of monstrous position is that?

Winning elections is the only way to stop murdering children in the womb. Win elections and start slowly moving the tide of public opininon in the direction you want.
Let me get this straight. You favor live-birth abortions. Because that's exactly the result that your position is going to produce.

The leftists are smart, they keep going for incremental changes that move inevitably in the direction they want. The right is stupid. They keep insisting on my way or the higway, and they never get what they want.

So I repeat my question, TB4E. So you favor live birth abortions with zero restrictions, right?

Because that's where your approach leads.