Raped women should not be able to have an abortion

[rch10007]

Actually, I just reread your first post, and it turns out, you ARE a bad person. Or maybe I should say, you're a poor excuse for a human being.

 

That's becasue you are one of those people I described.

[HAOLE]

For the record the woman should not have to pay for the rape kits. The state should, because it will be used as evidence.

[thorne]

We all deal with mental illness on some level. I geniunely feel sorry for you that you have chosen not to have children based on the experiences you have had in your life. I was being a bit sarcastic, in my previous post.....but I just find your position unreasonable.

 

 

What I'm trying to get at is, where has the VALUE OF LIFE gone?? I mean seriously, it's as if we treat babies(clumps of cells) or not, like they are worth less.

 

Life is a precious thing...........it is seriously a MIRACLE. Babies are blessings, NOT curses, regardless of mental state.

 

There really is no way to change eather of our opinion's. But I've seen it from my parents and both my sisters. Sadly my 1 sister is FAR worse off.

 

 

 

There is also Diabete's type 1.

[Brandon]

Some folks don't give a fuck what the Bible says. But I do agree the .gov should mind their own damn business.

 

Then vote republican.

 

Pretty easy if you ask me.

[GonneVille]

That's becasue you are one of those people I described.

Is there some semantic value to this statement, or do I assume that you have retreated into the realm of third-grade insults in lieu of admitting you're wrong?

[GonneVille]

Then vote republican.

 

Pretty easy if you ask me.

 

Does the Patriot Bill ring a bell? A Republican sponsored bill, and hardly what I would consider the government minding it's own damn business.

[TheHaze]

Is there some semantic value to this statement, or do I assume that you have retreated into the realm of third-grade insults in lieu of admitting you're wrong?

I'm not going to get in-between both you kids, but if his "insults" are immature to you, what are these considered?

 

Actually, I just reread your first post, and it turns out, you ARE a bad person. Or maybe I should say, you're a poor excuse for a human being.

 

So, you're not actually a bad person, you're just stupid.

 

If you think that the VICTIM of a rape should have to PAY for that, then you really are a piece of shit.

[GonneVille]

Do I need to defend this? He started by implying a victim of rape should pay for rape kits, in other words, they should pay for their own investigation into one of the most revolting crimes humanity can commit.

 

He then revealed through his posts that he had no idea what a rape kit actually was, but was willing to make sweeping statements concerning their funding.

 

At all points during the argument, I supported what I said with reason and fact. His last post contained zero semantic content and was exclusively a useless post to insult me, thereby making himself feel better by getting the last word in, instead of acknowledging his fault as he could have done at several points during the thread.

[TheHaze]

Do I need to defend this? He started by implying a victim of rape should pay for rape kits, in other words, they should pay for their own investigation into one of the most revolting crimes humanity can commit.

 

He then revealed through his posts that he had no idea what a rape kit actually was, but was willing to make sweeping statements concerning their funding.

 

At all points during the argument, I supported what I said with reason and fact. His last post contained zero semantic content and was exclusively a useless post to insult me, thereby making himself feel better by getting the last word in, instead of acknowledging his fault as he could have done at several points during the thread.

I'm not debating, just pointing out that his insults were no worse than yours.

[rch10007]

I was going to let it go, but since Mr. Fuckwad insists, let's review:

 

Here is my complete fucking post and to provide context, I provide Thorne's statement, as to what I was replying:

 

When voting for someone I take there personal beliefs very serious. That tells me allot about there charter. This is from a women who charged for rape kits.

 

Rape kits should be paid for by taxpayers?

 

Personal beliefs and legally bound obligations as the VP are not the same thing.

 

If you go find out what the fuck Palin actually said about rape kits you will understand what the fuck my context is. Your perception of what I said isn't my reality, it's yours.

 

Next time you want to try and man-up and defend your position by calling someone out on theirs, you should know what the fuck they are talking about first.

 

Now, let me go over your next steps:

 

1. Research what Palin says about rape kits and what that entails.

2. STFU.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Actually I have heard women who don't have kids run a higher risk for cancer... but who cares we will all die soon enough.

 

You heard wrong. It's the opposite.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Then vote republican.

 

Pretty easy if you ask me.

 

I don't vote for party. Both of the main parties are huge POS's. I vote for who I think will do the best job.

 

I hate republicans because they tend to be Bible-thumping nuts.

I hate democrats because they tend to butt their nose into everything. and they're faggots.

 

Voting based on party is what's wrong with this fucking country.

 

p.s. - the reasons why I hate each party are much longer than the few examples I just listed.

[RedRocket1647545505]

It may have been, but the wording makes it sound as though it is supposed adapt to modern society. There are certain parts of the Constitution that have nothing to do with today's society. For example: The right to bear arms was intended for a state militia, yet we have adapted it to fit today. I'm not saying they should take that away, I'm just saying there were different intentions when it was written and if some of it is going to be adapted to today, all of it should be.

 

No.

[thorne]

Doooooooooooooooo

[rch10007]

You aren't the fuckwad I was referring to.

[thorne]

Rofl ok =) As long as I'm another fuckwad.

 

 

 

There all spins period.

[GonneVille]

1. Research what Palin says about rape kits and what that entails.

2. STFU.

Got a link? I'd rather not spend half the night trying to find one particular statement out of five weeks of inane soundbites, but I am willing to have my opinion swayed. At this point, considering where this argument has gone, I would very much LIKE to have something to change my opinion of you. If it provides context that significantly alters the conversation, I will gladly apologize, but point out that it could have been brought up earlier.

[Brandon]

Does the Patriot Bill ring a bell? A Republican sponsored bill, and hardly what I would consider the government minding it's own damn business.

 

From what stand point would you like our government to mind its own *business*; from the point where we try to take from those who have worked hard to become wealthy and more fortunate, or the small business owner who now gets taxed much heavier and cant afford to employ the middle class?

 

Or does the government try and protect us from those threaten our lives, and my safety? From the way I see it, if you cant feel safe every day going to work, or on the weekends going into the Shoe, then whats money even matter.

 

Big brother is SOOO scary, behave and there are no problems.

 

Ill take safe every day, if it means some people get hurt in the process so be it, we all make sacrifices. False accusations are made daily, its sterotyping, I am guilty, and you are guilty. It is proven human nature, disagree if you choose. All I know is I am safe from millitant terrorist attacks, so ill let big brother keep a close eye.

[GonneVille]

I don't vote for party. Both of the main parties are huge POS's. I vote for who I think will do the best job.

 

I hate republicans because they tend to be Bible-thumping nuts.

I hate democrats because they tend to butt their nose into everything. and they're faggots.

 

Voting based on party is what's wrong with this fucking country.

 

p.s. - the reasons why I hate each party are much longer than the few examples I just listed.

 

I actually like Republicans on the local level. As mayors and in the State Congress, they tend to do a pretty good job. But in the Federal Govt, I much prefer Democrats at this point. A couple decades ago, I would have been a staunch Republican. But their stands on abortion, religion in public institutions, and their willingness to cut very close to the core of the Constitution scare the hell out of me. Throw this on top of their increasing liberal fiscal policies and the parties seem to have almost completely exchanged their stated philosophies.

 

Admittedly, Obama's beliefs on gun control scare me a bit, but in a time when the Supreme Court and other lower courts are reversing the more ridiculous gun laws, I don't think he will attempt to put forth anything to strenuous.

[GonneVille]

From what stand point would you like our government to mind its own *business*; from the point where we try to take from those who have worked hard to become wealthy and more fortunate, or the small business owner who now gets taxed much heavier and cant afford to employ the middle class?

I would like it if those who worked so hard to get where they are would pay their fair share of taxes instead of hiring weasel accountants, that the lower classes couldn't afford in a million lifetimes, to find every loophole and exception possible in order to skirt around paying their honest share of taxes. Find me a billionaire, I bet you the amount of money he ACTUALLY PAYS in taxes is considerably lower than what I do.

 

Or does the government try and protect us from those threaten our lives, and my safety? From the way I see it, if you cant feel safe every day going to work, or on the weekends going into the Shoe, then whats money even matter.

 

Big brother is SOOO scary, behave and there are no problems.

 

Ill take safe every day, if it means some people get hurt in the process so be it, we all make sacrifices. False accusations are made daily, its sterotyping, I am guilty, and you are guilty. It is proven human nature, disagree if you choose. All I know is I am safe from millitant terrorist attacks, so ill let big brother keep a close eye.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

The Revolutionary War occurred because men believed that their rights were important enough to die for. That even if they never enjoyed those rights themselves, that the fact that others would made their sacrifice worth it. That is the founding belief of our country.

Without that belief, without the absolute inviolability of those rights, the sacrifice of every soldier's life, in every war America has ever involved itself in, is MEANINGLESS.

[Scotty2Hotty]

It may have been, but the wording makes it sound as though it is supposed adapt to modern society. There are certain parts of the Constitution that have nothing to do with today's society. For example: The right to bear arms was intended for a state militia, yet we have adapted it to fit today. I'm not saying they should take that away, I'm just saying there were different intentions when it was written and if some of it is going to be adapted to today, all of it should be.

In all honesty the Constitution should never be adapted to, but in our modern liberal world, those in power do seem to "interpret" the Constitution. Granted the Bible was never meant to be taken literally either, but there are things like the Commandments that aren't open to interpretation. But again Politicians do what is in their best intrest, not OURS anymore.

[GonneVille]

In all honesty the Constitution should never be adapted to, but in our modern liberal world, those in power do seem to "interpret" the Constitution. Granted the Bible was never meant to be taken literally either, but there are things like the Commandments that aren't open to interpretation. But again Politicians do what is in their best intrest, not OURS anymore.

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that the wording is somewhat ambiguous. It does not say at any point that the Right to Bear Arms is dependent solely on there being a state militia, or that in the absence thereof, the right no longer applies. The strictest reading of it is that the right is there whether or not a state militia exists.

[xTHExBOSSx46]

But again Politicians do what is in their best intrest, not OURS anymore.

 

i hate to join this heated debate late, but this is the only statement any one has said that i can 100% agree with.

 

i agree with both sides of the spectrum. always have. and have never voted only one side of the ballot but thats because i dont debate based on emotion or word of mouth. i do it based on fact and feeling based on that fact and i think this would turn out a lot better if all did so. not just in this forums thread but in the actual political world thus comming back to politicians doing what is best for all of us and not turning conservitivism nor libralism into the crazy fads that they have turned into. i had a conversation with 3 different people today that claimed to be democrats and voted that way in previus elections. when i asked why they couldnt give me an answer other then they thought it was the lesser of two evils. and when i asked why do you feel that way i got either "thats what i heard on tv" or a blank stare. and this goes for republicans too. no one in this world can deny that abortion is in fact a shitty thing. all dirty and messy and what not. i personally dont agree with it there are always other ways to prevent pregnancy from rape or the rubber breaking. its wither or not one chooses to go about those measures, BUT again no one has the authority to say which measure of preventing pregnancy is the right one for any paticular person but them selves. that is the way it always has been and always will be. its just one of those issues where it can go either way no matter what someone says.

[copperhead]

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that the wording is somewhat ambiguous. It does not say at any point that the Right to Bear Arms is dependent solely on there being a state militia, or that in the absence thereof, the right no longer applies. The strictest reading of it is that the right is there whether or not a state militia exists.

 

What is so ambiguous about the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed?

[HAOLE]

This thread is not about gun control or the second amendment!