This Girl Has A Question That'll Stump Your Conservative Friends

This, however doesn't stump them, or even slow them down. I doubt this girl's question would either. They don't have to make sense, you know. They just have to stick to their irrational ideologies.

the question like you didn't ask it.

Takes years of practice to get away with that stuff.

That's their answer to the death penalty/abortion issue

that you cannot reason with a crazy person.

PRO LIFE

PRO WAR

PICK ONE

The problem with the pro life crowd is pro life is simply a moniker for anti-abortion. They latch themselves onto the 'i knew you before you were in the womb' non sense while ignoring all the other stuff that would lend oneself to become more Liberal.

So...support the biblical passages that advance a certain political ideology and don't bring up those that support the other.

Essentially, single issue voters.

Abortion is their money shot...after that they have nothing but a bag of hypocrisy.

They don't want people having sex. This is how they suppress. That's why they're also against contraception.


--imm

Cons are following their richie lords who tell them they have no choice but to have babies if they get pregnant. So the Cons have the feeling of submission, appeasing their rich lords. Then they have babies who grow up to think that being submissive automatons is normal, because their parents set that example.

Especially Pro-Life women...I have asked a lot of Pro-Lifers this question & considering I live in the Deep South it is not hard to find Pro-Lifers...

"So, lets say you succeeded in making all abortions illegal...How long should a 19yr old girl go to prison if she happens to survive an illegal abortion?"

Most people will say "Well, I have never really thought about that"...Not one woman I have asked this question actually gave me a time span that they thought would be just but a few men said anywhere from 2-20yrs.

for having sex with the woman who got pregnant. End the madness!

likely giving her a 19 year sentence. That is the time it takes for pregnancy and to raise a child to the age of maturity. How long would you sentence the male to prison for the rape?

...the assumption big that the baby goes up for adoption.

...that it was conceived in rape, so why should it have to die for the crime? Which makes a kind of sense if you ignore the fact that the fetus is inside a human being. See, that's the real key to all this. It's what makes this anti-woman. The one carrying the baby is always taken out of the equation. Even if her life is at risk from the pregnancy, she shouldn't abort. The fetus matters, she does not.

The fetus is given a god-like status (it can't be touched) and the mother is only the vessel carrying it, and she is expected to feel holy and grateful for doing this; she is not a person who is allowed to think for themselves, feel for themselves, or want anything for themselves. She exists only to serve the child. Hm. Sounds like one could create a religion around that. Wonder if there's any connection to the view of mother vs. child in this....

In their world the fetus' "rights" always supersede the rights of the living, breathing human woman.
That is the offensive part, that the split second conception occurs the woman is merely a vessel, a second class citizen.

The rapist would probably do less time & then want to share custody & eventually put lies in the child's mind about how the child was conceived.

They know what their answer is, they just don't want to say it. I've seen some of them say point blank that they should be tried for murder/accessory to murder.

Is it your experience that most who say they should be tried for murder, MEN??

is what I'd like to know.

Anyone anything like the common con today I'd rather live without, and be friendless if necessary.

and what few cons their was amongst them, (those I interact with regularly anyway) they were harshly shown the error of their ways back in the Bush years.

Someone being a relative doesn't mean squat to me in this context. My political povs, etc, were forged back in the waning days of the VN War, when I had an Archie Bunker-like, pro-war father with a buzz cut. Just because he was my dad didn't mean he got a pass from the condemnations, etc, that I'd offer the common racist, homophobic, apathetic, warmongering, torture-supporting, etc, Pee Partier of today.

Imo, it's the lack of the father against son, brother against brother, etc, condition, like that seen in the VN/civil rights and Civil War eras, and the interpersonal conflicts and the divisions that result, that explain in no small part the rise of the modern rightwingnut and their numbers. If my family was comprised of Pee Partiers, they'd not be seeing me at the thanksgiving table. Why would I wanna spend my time with a group of/a person that thinks I'm a infanticidal marxist muslim born in kenya who's the terrorists best friend and America hater supporter, or in the alternative, those that are likely also racists, homophobes, islamophobes, and part of the "let them eat dirt/die" crowd? Once those lines are drawn in the proverbial sand, there are only three choices available -- give them a pass by virtue of the family relationship alone and overlook it, treat them as you would any stranger of like mind, or divorce yourself from the relationship. Since I don't waste much time beating my head against the proverbial wall arguing with fools or tools, and can't in the interest of those all their povs and political support harm, remain silent, the third option works best for me. ANd in the case of those former Bushbotted relatives, it was they that after the silence and an examination of the evidence, that broke and offered a "You were right!", and apologized for all the "you hate the troops, love the terrosist" crap so prevalent in that crowd back then. It doesn't matter to me if that stuff comes as a direct and personal charge, or by way of implication based on what I support or condemn, the insult remains the same.

And besides, aren't we all defined by who and what we support, and hang with? There's nothing fair/just about giving family or friends a pass for things we'd ream the butts of strangers for, it just shows that the ones that do so, are willing to elevate due to self-interest, the value of relationships with people over the needs of those people that their vote would deny them. And if you give them the treatment you rightly would the stranger, what are the odds the realtionship is gonna retain the depth, breadth, and quality it had? Zero I'd say. To me the choice in this instance, is between preserving relationships with people who support various injustices, or serving the interests of those (often oneself as well) victimized by the injustices they support. I have an uncle Tom, but I'll never be one, because silence is consent, and tolerance for intolerance is an enabling of it.

I'd add also, that imo, that it has been the fear or existence of such alienation that explains in no small part the rise in support for gay marriage, etc, and in my long argued opinion on the other side of the coin, the widespread acceptance and tolerance for islamophobia since 9/11, that opened the door for so many racists to make inroads from the fringes of the public square where they once largely resided prior to it. Evil grows when good men stay silent. End of story. The same can be said as was seen by me in my relationship with my dad, for the changes in attitudes over the VN war, civil rights, etc. The enactment of the CRA in 1964 didn't change heartsd and minds, it was the collective effort of those of us that tenaciously championed those causes publicly -- and privately as I'm arguing for here -- that did. ANd the bottom line is, if the Pee Partiers, homophobes, racists, warmongers, torture-supporters, etc, pay no price for their povs, then there's no incentive for them to change.

“I’m always glad to get comments four years later,” McCain told Fox News, laughing. “Look, I respect the vice president. He and I had strong disagreements as to whether we should torture people or not. I don’t think we should have.”

Sorry, I can neither like nor respect a war criminal, or anyone (an enabler) that does, whether a relative or not, when it's clear that they know exactly what it is they are supporting. You might as well turn McCain black and change torture to the CRA of 1964. How as a victim, do you respect someone who'd keep you a second class citizen? ANd I'd ask as well, on a personal level, how could a relative or what would they base it on, respect someone they paint as a lilly-livered traitor supporter (based on the aforementioned rightwingnut description of BHO) that isn't in their face correcting them? That's the fuel that keeps bullies big and small thriving, the knowledge there is no price for their dirty deeds, and that it is they that have all the "respect", albeit of the less than desirable kind, as all fear-based respect is.

We see the same thing in almost all of DC politicians across the ideological divide as well. The sad part is, while the rightwingnuts have spent decades freely and without fear of reprisal painting/defining our kind in the most egregious and dishonest ways available, there's been little reciprocity (well, recently Kucinich, Grayson, and Weiner come to mind) from their dem/liberal victims, despite them having the facts on their side to make and sustain the case against the brownshirts.

Civility is way overrated, and tolerance for their intolerance is gonna be the death of this republic. That is after all, why they feel free to argue, no matter how stupidly and stupid it is, that it is those that are condemning the chick-fil-a people, that are the only "real", intolerant ones.

SO yeah, I'd give any relative a hearty "fuck you" that attended a rightwingnut Chick-fil-a-fest, or a host of other things the modern rightwingnut stands for, and hope they didn't like it.

Does this answer your question...lol?

Postnatally: You're on your own.

I love that flick!

The cons went silent, and the couple didn't tried to offer up logical fallacy based questions. Ugh. If only evolution had led to developing a typical trait of humans being able to say they are wrong about something, and not being so durned stuck in the habit of what we "believe."

and the comments mostly mentioned that Jesus' miracles were free, but the FB posters didn't want to have to PAY for "someone else's" health care.

Three felony convictions, you should be executed. Even non-violent ones.

I confronted him about his attitude about weed. Poor white and black people should go to jail for possession of weed, but it's ok for rich white guys to partake. I said "Isn't that hypocritical?" and he said "Maybe".



I stopped speaking to him in June. He's the one that posts nauseating pukeworthy anti-Obama hate speech and cannot understand why I won't talk to him.

...seem to have forgotten He went around healing, apparently at no profit to the shareholders -- in fact, for free.

Not only don't they forget the bit about loving their enemies; they can't manage the part about loving their neighbors.