It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just How Truly ‘Pro-Choice’ Is The Democratic Party?

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by butcherguy
There are laws limiting trans fats in foods in NYC.

New York Times


Those laws apply to establishments that sell food.
You can have all the soda and trans fats you want, even in NYC.

So what you are telling me is that there is a law regulating what kind of fats an establishment that sells food can sell to the public?




I never said that there were not such laws.
I think you have no idea what you are arguing.
Then I will have to say that you might be as dense as I am.

Your nanny state regulates private businesses, to the point of telling them that they can not use trans fats that are allowed to be consumed by the public. Surely you can see the folly in that, even if you can't see that it infringes on the liberty of both the businesses and the public that they serve.




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I read this a long time ago and had a good chuckle.....

"For example, one of them volunteered that she stood for "a women's right to choose." I asked her if she was equally supportive of a man's right to choose. She looked confused as if the idea that men should have any choices was completely foreign to her. I then clarified my question by asking her if she felt that a man should have a right to a "paper abortion." In other words, since an abortion is basically the right of a women to determine for herself whether or not she is ready to have a child and raise it until the age of 18 (and beyond), then a man should have the same right and be able to get an abortion-in-law which would basically be a legal procedure in which he could divest all interest and reponsibility in a child that he felt he was not prepared to care for, for the next 18 years of his life. She, of course, said no she did not support a man's right to choose that option."



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dimmuburger
 


Ummm... since when do men not get to choose?
Who decides to whip his dick out and put it places?
Pretty sure that is all his choice.

Have any men that have been raped and forced to be a father?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight76
 





Your point? At least Democrats don't run around screaming about keeping the government out of your life, but then say it's ok to intrude into your bedroom or uterus like the republicans do.


Oh that is a priceless comment from the "stay out of my womb, but pay for my birth control" crowd.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by dimmuburger
 


Ummm... since when do men not get to choose?
Who decides to whip his dick out and put it places?
Pretty sure that is all his choice.

Have any men that have been raped and forced to be a father?
It's the man's choice as well as the woman's. If she isn't agreeable, it is a rape.

Women have just as much choice in the matter as men do, with the exception of rape.

Are most abortions performed because a rape occurred? If that is the case, there shouldn't be much need for
late term abortions.

ETA: Here is when a man doesn't get to choose... When he is 'fingered' as being the father of a child that isn't his. There was a case in PA where a guy had DNA tests prove that he wasn't the father and the judge in the case made him continue to pay child support. The woman had the ultimate 'right to choose', she could have had an abortion. That resolves him of responsibility. What? He is responsible to pay for 18 years because the woman didn't do the right thing and have a medical procedure to remove the little tumor that she had?
edit on 6-9-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Then I will have to say that you might be as dense as I am.


Not dense at all, just also not expecting other people be ordered to serve me thing.


Your nanny state regulates private businesses, to the point of telling them that they can not use trans fats that are allowed to be consumed by the public. Surely you can see the folly in that, even if you can't see that it infringes on the liberty of both the businesses and the public that they serve.


Why? I live in NY and eat trans fats and drink all the soda I want. There is no law against it either.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by DarkKnight76
 





Your point? At least Democrats don't run around screaming about keeping the government out of your life, but then say it's ok to intrude into your bedroom or uterus like the republicans do.


Oh that is a priceless comment from the "stay out of my womb, but pay for my birth control" crowd.


Who is asking you to pay for their birth control?
I think you are seriously deluded.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
It's the man's choice as well as the woman's. If she isn't agreeable, it is a rape.


Oh, just rape?


Women have just as much choice in the matter as men do, with the exception of rape.


No they do not. Men cannot be impregnated against their will. Women can. A biology teacher can help you from here.


Are most abortions performed because a rape occurred? If that is the case, there shouldn't be much need for
late term abortions.


How did we switch to just late term abortions?


ETA: Here is when a man doesn't get to choose... When he is 'fingered' as being the father of a child that isn't his. There was a case in PA where a guy had DNA tests prove that he wasn't the father and the judge in the case made him continue to pay child support. The woman had the ultimate 'right to choose', she could have had an abortion. That resolves him of responsibility. What? He is responsible to pay for 18 years because the woman didn't do the right thing and have a medical procedure to remove the little tumor that she had?
edit on 6-9-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


One whole crazy judge made a huge mistake huh? Need a list of judges that made even stupider rulings?
So you have one....
How many rapes do we have so far...?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 




Not dense at all, just also not expecting other people be ordered to serve me thing.

You might want to roll that over in your mind a few more times.
No one is being ordered to serve you any 'thing'.
The issue is a city that says an establishment is ordered NOT to serve you certain foods that you may like or desire. Foods that by your own admission are legal to eat, just that the establishment can't serve them to you.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 




One whole crazy judge made a huge mistake huh? Need a list of judges that made even stupider rulings?

What I gave you there is called 'an example'. Are you naive enough to think that there is only one man out there that has paid 18 years of child support for a child that wasn't his?

I will note that you didn't address the main point, that a woman has the ultimate right to choose whether she has the child or aborts the unviable tissue mass.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 




Oh, just rape?

Uh, yep, that's what they call it when a woman doesn't agree to sex and the man has it with her anyway.

Really.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
You might want to roll that over in your mind a few more times.
No one is being ordered to serve you any 'thing'.


Because I missed the "s?"


The issue is a city that says an establishment is ordered NOT to serve you certain foods that you may like or desire. Foods that by your own admission are legal to eat, just that the establishment can't serve them to you.


And I do not need people to serve me things. The claim was that these things are banned in NYC. That was what I responded to. They are not banned any more than baby formula is banned. Claiming trans fats and large sodas are banned or illegal in NYC are what are known as lies.

How far off topic do you need to go? You cannot prove me wrong. These things are not banned. That is all there is to it. Burger King cannot serve alcohol but that does not mean NYC is under prohibition.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 



No they do not. Men cannot be impregnated against their will. Women can. A biology teacher can help you from here.

Okay, I said with the exception of rape.
Would you like to clear things up and tell us when a woman gets impregnated against her will that does not involve rape?
Please, be my biology professor!

Try not to use immaculate conception in your answer, okay?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by wascurious
 




One whole crazy judge made a huge mistake huh? Need a list of judges that made even stupider rulings?

What I gave you there is called 'an example'. Are you naive enough to think that there is only one man out there that has paid 18 years of child support for a child that wasn't his?


I do believe that men paying for children that DNA proved were not theirs must be extremely rare. What number do you think one example is indicative of?


I will note that you didn't address the main point, that a woman has the ultimate right to choose whether she has the child or aborts the unviable tissue mass.


And men have the ultimate choice whether or not to impregnate anyone to begin with. That gives them the real ultimate power.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 





And I do not need people to serve me things

Good for you.
Does that mean that an establishment should not be able to serve you food that isn't illegal to eat?




Burger King cannot serve alcohol but that does not mean NYC is under prohibition.
If the Burger King Corporation wanted to, the could be just like Olive Garden, and serve alcohol with their Whoppers. They choose not to. This thread is about choice, some that curiously vanishes under the thumb of those that pride themselves on being 'pro choice'.
edit on 6-9-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 




I do believe that men paying for children that DNA proved were not theirs must be extremely rare. What number do you think one example is indicative of?

Okay, you are a troll.

There are a lot of men out there that paid for babies that weren't their children, long before DNA tests became inexpensive.

Your numbers would indicate that you are a noobie.... But that you aren't. I suspect that you are a returning troll.
Later, done feeding you.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Okay, I said with the exception of rape.
Would you like to clear things up and tell us when a woman gets impregnated against her will that does not involve rape?
Please, be my biology professor!

Try not to use immaculate conception in your answer, okay?

I am pretty sure you missed the point there completely.
No woman can just up and go impregnate a man.
A man can just up and go impregnate a woman.
So who has ultimate control over whether or not a life is started?
The sperm donor.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Good for you.
Does that mean that an establishment should not be able to serve you food that isn't illegal to eat?


I really do not care. The claim was that they are banned. They are not. Even you admit that. You are trying to argue a completely different point.



If the Burger King Corporation wanted to, the could be just like Olive Garden, and serve alcohol with their Whoppers. They choose not to. This thread is about choice, some that curiously vanishes under the thumb of those that pride themselves on being 'pro choice'.
edit on 6-9-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Going out of your way to be obtuse? At the moment, if BK started serving alcohol it would be illegal. Does that mean alcohol is banned or does it just mean BK does not have a LL? If 7/11 cannot sell a 5 gallon drum of soda, it does not mean 5 gallons of soda is banned.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Okay, you are a troll.


Great point!



There are a lot of men out there that paid for babies that weren't their children, long before DNA tests became inexpensive.

Lots of things that used to happen are wrong. Are we now discussing past injustices or the world we live in today? Are discussing how pro-choice the Democratic party was when DNA tests were expensive?


Your numbers would indicate that you are a noobie.... But that you aren't. I suspect that you are a returning troll.
Later, done feeding you.


I am not sure how to respond to personal attacks from someone I do not actually know. It seems weak though from a discussion standpoint. You wanted to argue what you wanted to argue, regardless of what I actually said to begin with. That is your issue I guess.

Now tell me you think the Republican party is more pro-choice.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join