Christ Centered Gamer

Lazarus wrote:Morally bankrupt wasn't what I said, but I totally agree that they are, so your sarcasm was... not sarcastic enough?

You agree that they're morally bankrupt because of their race, age and the fact that they were elected into office by their constituents?

(Sarcasm =/= satire, brah.)

Oh well.

I don't know what you're trying to say with "Sarcasm =/= satire", but the phrase "willfully obtuse" would be more appropriate in your case.

I think they're morally bankrupt, but not because of their race, age or the fact that they were elected into office by their constituents. You were the one who said that. I only agreed that they are morally bankrupt.

Jeez.

Hey if name calling is your way of dealing with it that's cool. I'm just trying to get a handle on your perspective here, because you're literally saying the guys who are trying to PREVENT the killing of unborn children are the morally bankrupt ones, and that's just silly to me.

All headbutting aside, the issue at hand is whether or not rich old white men get to legislate issues they know little about, have little experience with, or will never have to face the consequences of. It's like how I get ticked when they feel they know enough to legislate laws involving tech. Well, I mean, that has to do with their financial backing too, but ignoring that for a moment... >_>

It is funny how most(not all) of the politicians in favor of criminalizing abortion are men. I wonder why the majority of women don't want the government taking away their personal autonomy.

Oh wait, I forgot. They're not smart enough to realize that abortion is murder so the men have to take charge and tell them what to do.

Lazarus wrote:It is funny how most(not all) of the politicians in favor of criminalizing abortion are men. I wonder why the majority of women don't want the government taking away their personal autonomy.

Oh wait, I forgot. They're not smart enough to realize that abortion is murder so the men have to take charge and tell them what to do.

Now hang on, this isn't exactly a fair statement, much less accurate.

There are enough women on both sides of the issue to make the idea that only one side has strong intelligent women in it incorrect. You make it sound like all women on the anti-abortion side are dimwitted housewives who believe that their only purposes are making babies and working in the kitchen.

But he wasn't saying that, he was saying that the legislators who are making the laws are predominantly not women.

RoosterOnAStick wrote: There are enough women on both sides of the issue to make the idea that only one side has strong intelligent women in it incorrect. You make it sound like all women on the anti-abortion side are dimwitted housewives who believe that their only purposes are making babies and working in the kitchen.

I absolutely reject your appraisal of what I said. First, I never said that women who are against abortion are weak or stupid. Second, I don't believe they are weak or stupid. But somebody sure does!

When the majority of politicians who are trying to ban abortion are men, it sends a message that they think women can't be trusted with their own bodies.

Deepfreeze is right, the point is that the politicians doing this are mostly men. That's the point!

RoosterOnAStick wrote: There are enough women on both sides of the issue to make the idea that only one side has strong intelligent women in it incorrect. You make it sound like all women on the anti-abortion side are dimwitted housewives who believe that their only purposes are making babies and working in the kitchen.

You're correct here. In fact, women tend to poll more pro-life than men do.

Am I the only one who's tired of the race part getting thrown around and feels it has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

LAVA89 wrote:Am I the only one who's tired of the race part getting thrown around and feels it has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Who are you referring to?

Everybody here is, like, super wrong.

This is already pretty enflamed, so why not embrace it.

Usmc52002 wrote:Oh my , like i have said on other posts . End times is upon us .

Nothing quite invalidates one's own statement like following it up with "End times is upon us." People have been saying this for millenia. Yeah, things aren't the way you like it, it doesn't mean it's doomsday. I get that it's the christian way of saying times are getting worse, but it's just so fallacious on so many levels.

ArcticFox wrote:This is one of the major reasons why Star Trek is Fantasy, not sci fi.

Star Trek is science fiction. It may get science wrong a lot, but it's pretty staunchly soft sci fi. Come on, get it together.

On a lesser point, the ability for women to have power over their own reproduction system is an incredibly powerful right and is strongly tied to civil well-being. The question is when does personhood and/or consciousness start. To deny reproduction rights on the grounds for fetus which hasn't developed consciousness isn't morally laughable. And if those dang Klingons want to go to war over it, so be it! Qapla'! I'll see them at Axanar!

ArcticFox wrote:That's right because only Christians are deluded enough to think unborn babies shouldn't be torn apart and tossed in a dumpster, amirite?

Also, it probably should be handled as medical waste...

Lazarus wrote:The graphic language is used to appeal to emotion and override the fact that a bunch of angry white men want to legislate every little detail of how all women manage their wombs and other body parts, while ironically claiming that they want the government to stay out of our lives.

I have a couple bigh issues with this rhetoric. While yes, technically since most of our legislators are white men, this is the case, but the do represent a very large populace of both men and women, and of many ethnicitie, who feel very strongly about pro-life.
Apart from being just misleading, it's just that sort of provocation that will never lead to any constructive dialogue, but in turn will set pro-lifers against merited points. It offers to value, pretends to be true while being at it's core, wrong, and only polarizes an already over-polarized issue.

ChickenSoup wrote:All headbutting aside, the issue at hand is whether or not rich old white men get to legislate issues they know little about, have little experience with, or will never have to face the consequences of. It's like how I get ticked when they feel they know enough to legislate laws involving tech. Well, I mean, that has to do with their financial backing too, but ignoring that for a moment... >_>

Well, okay, we have some good discussian material here, but, to stay true to my opening clause, I'm going to have to disagree. Also, I disagree.
Now, far be it from me to say our current legislators are representative of the people, but it's not really that they are not representative of women's issue biologically. You can always find some facet that our elected officials are not paritied on with the people. They are elected and that if they are not representative enough, that needs to be fixed in election. Representation, also, should be based on political positions and ideas, and not simple one's biological or sociological traits. A sextagarian latina could represent me better than a half-asian 30 something guy. We can't have congress being nulled out on every election because they can't make rules involving welfare since none of them are on welfare, etc.
Even if you had a full panel of women, the abortion debate still goes on. It's about reproduction rights versus rights of the fetus.
But, I do give credence to your point that the people making the decisions seems to do little job educating themselves on what they need to know to make an informed choice.

ChickenSoup wrote:Borg Jesus was assimilated for your sins

Yeah, okay. This is true.

Lazarus wrote:Who are you referring to?

Well, you were the first to inject it into this conversation, but others have brought it up afterwards.

LAVA89 wrote:

Lazarus wrote:Who are you referring to?

Well, you were the first to inject it into this conversation, but others have brought it up afterwards.

In this thread? When and where???

Lazarus wrote:In this thread? When and where???

That's what I want to know!