Con_Alma;1833779 wrote:There's very little that can make me worry but I appreciate the sentiment.

I'm glad you clarified your efforts to make entities up.

Well as an atheist I certainly respect others to worship whatever god they want. I would ask in return for religious folks to respect the right of others and NOT impose those beliefs on the rights of other people.

Sound good?

like_that;1833782 wrote:http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?48216-Disgusted-with-Trump-administration-Part-I&p=1833617&viewfull=1#post1833617

Well I am not Christian so that doesn't really apply to me. Rallying to end government funding on PP is not rallying against the health of women regardless of what troll Sleeper's new act says.

Again, PP survived over 50 years without the governments assistance.

If you can't accept that preventative measures for healthcare is VASTLY cheaper than medical emergencies, then I cannot help you.

Planned Parenthood is sometimes the only option for women AND men to get healthcare services without resorting to the emergency room. For a party that complains about the high cost of healthcare, you should be demanding MORE funding for services like Plannet Parenthood that lower the total cost of healthcare in this country for a fraction of that expense.

But no, this is about sticking it to a woman's health organization. Hopefully you will be redeemed.

sleeper;1833784 wrote:If you can't accept that preventative measures for healthcare is VASTLY cheaper than medical emergencies, then I cannot help you.

Planned Parenthood is sometimes the only option for women AND men to get healthcare services without resorting to the emergency room. For a party that complains about the high cost of healthcare, you should be demanding MORE funding for services like Plannet Parenthood that lower the total cost of healthcare in this country for a fraction of that expense.

But no, this is about sticking it to a woman's health organization. Hopefully you will be redeemed.

I just hope youre redeemed for your treatment of women here:

http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?48216-Disgusted-with-Trump-administration-Part-I&p=1833617&viewfull=1#post1833617


Anyway, the if government slashes its funding for many programs(including planned parenthood) it gives more room for the goodwill of the people to open up their wallets. The same people who spent $400B in charitable contributions this past year. PP and other similar organizations can easily survive without the government (PP already did for half a century). The Sleeper prior to May 2016 knows this. You know, the sleeper who was all about smaller government and voted for Gary Johnson. Keep working on that liberal troll act though, you need to find a catchy phrase that sticks.

sleeper;1833768 wrote:
Sorry about your wife. I guess she should just stay in the kitchen and pop out babies with a few trips to the washing machine to fold your laundry. Man, weren't the 1800's great?

Yea, her doctorate and larger income than mine sucks for me. My post was saying that she's intelligent and understands that women are just as equal as men in everything.

Btw, condoms are free, and if you're worried about getting pregnant, don't have sex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sleeper;1833783 wrote:Well as an atheist I certainly respect others to worship whatever god they want. I would ask in return for religious folks to respect the right of others and NOT impose those beliefs on the rights of other people.

Sound good?

Atheists pray? I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for opening my eyes.

What rights have religious people imposed their beliefs on? Rights are clearly spelled out and supported by our *government. Religious folks don't have the ability to take away rights.

sleeper;1833773 wrote:Way to deflect from the issues.

When they go low, we go high.

I guess you did not see all the "high" posters, placards, and costumes donned by the marchers. Pretty sad.

sleeper;1833783 wrote:Well as an atheist I certainly respect others to worship whatever god they want. I would ask in return for religious folks to respect the right of others and NOT impose those beliefs on the rights of other people.

Sound good?

How do you respect the rights of the innocent unborn?

QuakerOats;1833792 wrote:How do you respect the rights of the innocent unborn?

The unborn are not people therefore they do not have rights.

Not difficult to comprehend. SAD!

Con_Alma;1833788 wrote:Atheists pray? I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for opening my eyes.

What rights have religious people imposed their beliefs on? Rights are clearly spelled out and supported by our *government. Religious folks don't have the ability to take away rights.

We pray to the almighty Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by his noodlely appendage.

sleeper;1833796 wrote:The unborn are not people therefore they do not have rights.

Not difficult to comprehend. SAD!

If true then I should certainly be able to dig up all the sea turtle eggs on the beach and stomp them into thousands of pieces without consequence.


Liberals .............they make zero sense.

QuakerOats;1833800 wrote:If true then I should certainly be able to dig up all the sea turtle eggs on the beach and stomp them into thousands of pieces without consequence.


Liberals .............they make zero sense.

If true, we should put women in jail for miscarriages for manslaughter.

Conservatives, they make no sense and reduce arguments down to destroying turtle eggs vs. protecting the rights of women to have control over their own bodies.

sleeper;1833796 wrote:The unborn are not people therefore they do not have rights.

Not difficult to comprehend. SAD!

But that's not altogether true.

People who kill a pregnant woman can also be charged with killing the baby while it's in the womb, regardless of the stage of developement. In many cases, the child has the rights as a born child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.

Where the law has a problem is in determining who kills the baby - mother or other; when it was killed doesn't particularly matter, depending on which style of abortion is enacted. I suspect that this will be the continuing debate with or without Trump.

sleeper;1833806 wrote:If true, we should put women in jail for miscarriages for manslaughter.

Conservatives, they make no sense and reduce arguments down to destroying turtle eggs vs. protecting the rights of women to have control over their own bodies.

How about women who have control over the innocent unborn?

CenterBHSFan;1833817 wrote:But that's not altogether true.

People who kill a pregnant woman can also be charged with killing the baby while it's in the womb, regardless of the stage of developement. In many cases, the child has the rights as a born child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act



Where the law has a problem is in determining who kills the baby - mother or other; when it was killed doesn't particularly matter, depending on which style of abortion is enacted. I suspect that this will be the continuing debate with or without Trump.

Well good thing there is a safe, medical way to remove the cluster of cells from the human body.

QuakerOats;1833825 wrote:How about women who have control over the innocent unborn?

Unborn don't have legal rights. So the woman gets to chose whether or not she wants to carry the cluster of cells to term or not.

This isn't the 1800's anymore. Women are people too and it's their right to control what happens to their own bodies. It doesn't surprise me at all that advocates for sexual violence against women don't understand basic fundamental human rights for women. Hail Trump!

Spock;1833703 wrote:Sleeper doesn't realize that the right is not concerned about taking rights from anyone. They just don't want to fund it with tax dollars. You want birth control and abortions.....just pay for it on your own.

QuakerOats;1833792 wrote:How do you respect the rights of the innocent unborn?

........

sleeper;1833835 wrote:Unborn don't have legal rights. So the woman gets to chose whether or not she wants to carry the cluster of cells to term or not.

This isn't the 1800's anymore. Women are people too and it's their right to control what happens to their own bodies. It doesn't surprise me at all that advocates for sexual violence against women don't understand basic fundamental human rights for women. Hail Trump!

At some point, I predict that the SCOTUS will need to decide when life begins, and with this decision, when human rights of the unborn begin.

As you have so eloquently stated, "(t)his isn't the 1800's anymore". We know through the advancement of medical fact, that the "cluster of cells", when the situation happens, can become a premie and can grow outside of the womb. This phenomenon has happen with a couple people I know who are adults this day.

I understand your point that women have rights to control what happens to their bodies. If the day comes that a legal decision is made determining in-uetero life, women, and the men they sleep with, will need to understand the ramifications of their sexual activities and that these activities can have consequences that will lead to a separate person, other than themselves, having fundamental human rights as well.

Until that day, children who could otherwise be able to grow into adulthood, will continue to die.

This is a main reason why I think people elected DJT. They have the hope that he will put judges in the position that one day the human rights of the unborn will finally be acknowledged... kind of like why people who didn't like everything about him, voted for Lincoln in the hope that slavery would be ended and the former slaves would be guaranteed their human rights.

We'll see how it all meshes out. My opinion is that if people are really concerned about fundamental human rights, they will naturally want, even demand, to extend those same rights to the unborn.

Apple;1833854 wrote:At some point, I predict that the SCOTUS will need to decide when life begins, and with this decision, when human rights of the unborn begin.

As you have so eloquently stated, "(t)his isn't the 1800's anymore". We know through the advancement of medical fact, that the "cluster of cells", when the situation happens, can become a premie and can grow outside of the womb. This phenomenon has happen with a couple people I know who are adults this day.

I understand your point that women have rights to control what happens to their bodies. If the day comes that a legal decision is made determining in-uetero life, women, and the men they sleep with, will need to understand the ramifications of their sexual activities and that these activities can have consequences that will lead to a separate person, other than themselves, having fundamental human rights as well.

Until that day, children who could otherwise be able to grow into adulthood, will continue to die.

This is a main reason why I think people elected DJT. They have the hope that he will put judges in the position that one day the human rights of the unborn will finally be acknowledged... kind of like why people who didn't like everything about him, voted for Lincoln in the hope that slavery would be ended and the former slaves would be guaranteed their human rights.

We'll see how it all meshes out. My opinion is that if people are really concerned about fundamental human rights, they will naturally want, even demand, to extend those same rights to the unborn.

That's rich coming from a member of a party that wanted to restrict the rights of the BORN to marry whomever they wanted. Very rich.

The compromise is simple. Pro-life people can have their baby and pro-choice people will have the option to abort or not. We will not let religious whack jobs take this country.

sleeper;1833856 wrote:That's rich coming from a member of a party that wanted to restrict the rights of the BORN to marry whomever they wanted. Very rich.

The compromise is simple. Pro-life people can have their baby and pro-choice people will have the option to abort or not. We will not let religious whack jobs take this country.

Nice "marriage rights" deflect. Kudos to you for the effort. Regarding your separation of pro-life and pro-choice people, sounds a lot like the 1830-40's when new states in the north were admitted as free states and new states admitted in the south were slave states. That didn't end very peaceably for that fundamental human rights issue.

The abortion issue, in my opinion is not a religious issue, its a fundamental human rights issue.

Try again...

Sleeper is having a great week. #bringbackisadore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sleeper;1833797 wrote:We pray to the almighty Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by his noodlely appendage.

Than you you for clarifying this.

sleeper;1833835 wrote:Unborn don't have legal rights.

...

This isn't exactly true.

sleeper;1833835 wrote:Unborn don't have legal rights. So the woman gets to chose whether or not she wants to carry the cluster of cells to term or not.

This isn't the 1800's anymore. Women are people too and it's their right to control what happens to their own bodies. It doesn't surprise me at all that advocates for sexual violence against women don't understand basic fundamental human rights for women. Hail Trump!

Interestingly, early on, the church took a contemporarily liberal view of abortion. Baptists, in particular, were generally pro-choice.

Fab4Runner;1833841 wrote:........

Maybe not universally, eh? LOL

bases_loaded;1833860 wrote:Sleeper is having a great week. #bringbackisadore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Leave Sleeper alone. After 8 years of Quaker Oats whining Sleeper is just making things "Fair And Balanced."

ppaw1999;1833966 wrote:Leave Sleeper alone. After 8 years of Quaker Oats whining Sleeper is just making things "Fair And Balanced."

Trump supporters can't defend their candidate so they attack me.

Sound familiar?