Me

alohafri wrote:...if "Doctor" Oz has his way. He said we should start reopening schools to get back to normal. We would only lose about 2-3% of the population if that were to happen. I guess that is acceptable to him.


You know me. I'm pro-life. But if anyone who calls themselves pro-life isn't appalled by this, then fuck them. If someone said that you could end COVID by aborting 2-3% of babies conceived in the next month, they would be up in arms! But their children who have been born? Sure, that's a risk they are wiling to take.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:These nuts are in a frenzy for one reason....they know that Trump is a fucking imbecile and that his only chance of winning reelection is to paint him as an economic hero with a great economy.  Without a good economy, he's just a blundering imbecile who lucked into winning the presidency.  They care only about fixing the economy in order to win the election and retain power.  It's quite a simple equation.  They're apparently willing to take the gamble that they will not be among the 2-3%.

sharpy wrote:...if "Doctor" Oz has his way. He said we should start reopening schools to get back to normal. We would only lose about 2-3% of the population if that were to happen. I guess that is acceptable to him.


You know me. I'm pro-life. But if anyone who calls themselves pro-life isn't appalled by this, then fuck them. If someone said that you could end COVID by aborting 2-3% of babies conceived in the next month, they would be up in arms! But their children who have been born? Sure, that's a risk they are wiling to take.

I'm pro life too .. we just disagree as to when life starts, and we disagree that terminating an unwanted child is better than seeing that child physically,mentally or sexually abused by the adults responsible for his/her care.  I value life after birth, much more than I do life before birth. To coldly state that its acceptable to lose 2-3% of the population so that we make sure Aurelio's pizza restaurants stay open, and worse yet for a physician to stay that, is appalling to anyone with a sense of humanity.  I am pro-life b/c I believe this is it .. once you're gone you are gone, which causes me great angst when I think people treat people like shit, that poor people exist while some CEO makes $650million a year, or like in BILLIONS people try to crush their fellow man, or to be killed in or worse, start a war over frivolous bullshit, b/c those soldiers killed, the civilians killed, the kids gunned down in school are over - done - their existence is a memory, and it gets frustrating when people are not humane to other people.  We use God (s) as an excuse - 30 kids gunned down --- that's okay, God's will, they are in a better place .. God wanted them to be with Him - instead of looking at what happened and say never fuckin' again b/c they just took innocent life because its easier to say its god's will than to try and make things right b/c after all, can't fight God can we? -- frankly, Oz, if he said this bullshit (and I am sure he did) - he should lose his show and get into retirement. This asshole was a cardiac surgeon - wonder if before his operations he said that "about 5% of my patients die after bypass surgery but that's okay- small number that I find very acceptable - hope you ain't one of them, but if you are- who cares b/c I'll still get paid and keep the economy humming with my new Mercedes purchase". 

blondy28 wrote:

sharpy wrote:...if "Doctor" Oz has his way. He said we should start reopening schools to get back to normal. We would only lose about 2-3% of the population if that were to happen. I guess that is acceptable to him.


You know me. I'm pro-life. But if anyone who calls themselves pro-life isn't appalled by this, then fuck them. If someone said that you could end COVID by aborting 2-3% of babies conceived in the next month, they would be up in arms! But their children who have been born? Sure, that's a risk they are wiling to take.

I'm pro life too .. we just disagree as to when life starts, and we disagree that terminating an unwanted child is better than seeing that child physically,mentally or sexually abused by the adults responsible for his/her care.  I value life after birth, much more than I do life before birth. To coldly state that its acceptable to lose 2-3% of the population so that we make sure Aurelio's pizza restaurants stay open, and worse yet for a physician to stay that, is appalling to anyone with a sense of humanity.  I am pro-life b/c I believe this is it .. once you're gone you are gone, which causes me great angst when I think people treat people like shit, that poor people exist while some CEO makes $650million a year, or like in BILLIONS people try to crush their fellow man, or to be killed in or worse, start a war over frivolous bullshit, b/c those soldiers killed, the civilians killed, the kids gunned down in school are over - done - their existence is a memory, and it gets frustrating when people are not humane to other people.  We use God (s) as an excuse - 30 kids gunned down --- that's okay, God's will, they are in a better place .. God wanted them to be with Him - instead of looking at what happened and say never fuckin' again b/c they just took innocent life because its easier to say its god's will than to try and make things right b/c after all, can't fight God can we? -- frankly, Oz, if he said this bullshit (and I am sure he did) - he should lose his show and get into retirement. This asshole was a cardiac surgeon - wonder if before his operations he said that "about 5% of my patients die after bypass surgery but that's okay- small number that I find very acceptable - hope you ain't one of them, but if you are- who cares b/c I'll still get paid and keep the economy humming with my new Mercedes purchase". 

Nobody is happier that Dr. Phil stuck his foot in it on Laura Ingraham's show than Dr. Oz.

I've always said that the pro-life people are actually pro-fetus, and the calls to open the economy, I think, demonstrate that more than just about anything.  They dismiss the rationale of terminating a pregnancy because you can't afford a/another child, yet they argue to open the states because of the financial repercussions.  So it's ok for kids and Aloha to die due to financial concerns, but it's not ok to terminate a pregnancy due to financial concerns.

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

sharpy wrote:...if "Doctor" Oz has his way. He said we should start reopening schools to get back to normal. We would only lose about 2-3% of the population if that were to happen. I guess that is acceptable to him.


You know me. I'm pro-life. But if anyone who calls themselves pro-life isn't appalled by this, then fuck them. If someone said that you could end COVID by aborting 2-3% of babies conceived in the next month, they would be up in arms! But their children who have been born? Sure, that's a risk they are wiling to take.

I'm pro life too .. we just disagree as to when life starts, and we disagree that terminating an unwanted child is better than seeing that child physically,mentally or sexually abused by the adults responsible for his/her care.  I value life after birth, much more than I do life before birth. To coldly state that its acceptable to lose 2-3% of the population so that we make sure Aurelio's pizza restaurants stay open, and worse yet for a physician to stay that, is appalling to anyone with a sense of humanity.  I am pro-life b/c I believe this is it .. once you're gone you are gone, which causes me great angst when I think people treat people like shit, that poor people exist while some CEO makes $650million a year, or like in BILLIONS people try to crush their fellow man, or to be killed in or worse, start a war over frivolous bullshit, b/c those soldiers killed, the civilians killed, the kids gunned down in school are over - done - their existence is a memory, and it gets frustrating when people are not humane to other people.  We use God (s) as an excuse - 30 kids gunned down --- that's okay, God's will, they are in a better place .. God wanted them to be with Him - instead of looking at what happened and say never fuckin' again b/c they just took innocent life because its easier to say its god's will than to try and make things right b/c after all, can't fight God can we? -- frankly, Oz, if he said this bullshit (and I am sure he did) - he should lose his show and get into retirement. This asshole was a cardiac surgeon - wonder if before his operations he said that "about 5% of my patients die after bypass surgery but that's okay- small number that I find very acceptable - hope you ain't one of them, but if you are- who cares b/c I'll still get paid and keep the economy humming with my new Mercedes purchase". 

Nobody is happier that Dr. Phil stuck his foot in it on Laura Ingraham's show than Dr. Oz.

I've always said that the pro-life people are actually pro-fetus, and the calls to open the economy, I think, demonstrate that more than just about anything.  They dismiss the rationale of terminating a pregnancy because you can't afford a/another child, yet they argue to open the states because of the financial repercussions.  So it's ok for kids and Aloha to die due to financial concerns, but it's not ok to terminate a pregnancy due to financial concerns.

I think you need to qualify your belief about pro-life people being pro-fetus. There are many who are pro-life from conception to natural death. Some of them are on the front lines fighting against putting kids in cages at the border. Some of them fight against the death penalty. Some of them fight to protect children from abuse. And if you can't afford to have another child, there are ways to prevent that from happening. Just walk into Walgreens, call your doctor, or go online. There is a commercial running where you can get any method of birth control you want. Abortion as birth control? Really?

SoxIlliniRob wrote:While the idea of abortion of birth control deeply saddens me, especially when you consider how many people want kids and can't have them, I'm still surprised that the abortion debate remains so focused on life, abortion, what constitutes live and what constitutes a "person" when the actual RvW ruling is a rule giving me a constitutional right to privacy.  Whether one likes my moral stance on abortion should be secondary to the fact that it's a constitutionally private matter until ruled otherwise.  It just surprises me at how much the argument is about abortion more than about medical privacy.  Do I have said privacy or do I not?  Do I have a right to a medically private decision or do I not?  Until some SCOTUS rules that a fetus has more rights than I do, or at least equal rights to me, then I don't particularly understand the debate at all.  I don't really see how or why we even have abortion numbers or stats, since it's a private thing.  I'd like to see it remain a private, personal decision.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:While the idea of abortion of birth control deeply saddens me, especially when you consider how many people want kids and can't have them, I'm still surprised that the abortion debate remains so focused on life, abortion, what constitutes live and what constitutes a "person" when the actual RvW ruling is a rule giving me a constitutional right to privacy.  Whether one likes my moral stance on abortion should be secondary to the fact that it's a constitutionally private matter until ruled otherwise.  It just surprises me at how much the argument is about abortion more than about medical privacy.  Do I have said privacy or do I not?  Do I have a right to a medically private decision or do I not?  Until some SCOTUS rules that a fetus has more rights than I do, or at least equal rights to me, then I don't particularly understand the debate at all.  I don't really see how or why we even have abortion numbers or stats, since it's a private thing.  I'd like to see it remain a private, personal decision.

I don't know the particulars, but seems like in one of the hearings...maybe for Kavanaugh...he said that Roe wouldn't make abortion illegal, but that Roe and another decision would have to be reversed.  Too lazy to look.  But what your write makes something else make so much sense.  The transgender lockerroom/bathroom issue, when it first became a public issue for our high school district, there were a couple school board meetings where people were able to address the school board.  At that time, they made a decision that they said only applied to Student A.  Late last year the school board took up the issue to adopt a permanent policy at all D211 students at all schools, and I noticed in those meetings, as well as in the comments sections of the Daily Herald articles about it, they kept using the phrase "bodily privacy", saying that all students had a right to that.  I believe the judge dismissed the argument of "bodily privacy", saying that there is no right to bodily privacy in a locker room, but they still used that language when arguing before the school board.  Now that you say that about Roe, I wonder if that's where that strategy came from.