Captain Semantics doesn't name things.
Only the Namingway card can do that!
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Bloodrose said: » Amandarius: Giver of advice that he will never put into practice. I don't lie so it's easy. Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » Nope, its saying that Aman's standard insults don't affect me (or anyone) and they do nothing for his "argument" which turned out to be lies. Oookay. I'm not getting involved in your spat, I just wanted to verify that you're not entirely sick in the head. Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Good thing that is not even a medical term. I'm sorry, Captain Semantics. Would you like to give a new name to it that makes you feel better about it? It has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with a political agenda. Now if it was an actual recognized medical term I was just correcting you on then sure. You don't need me to tell you what it is called. There was no reason to correct me on the pseudonym for the practice unless you're trying to defend it. So what's your stance on the matter? Phoenix.Amandarius said: » The numbers support that Planned Parenthood is racist. It was designed to "solve the negro problem" according to it's founder and it continues it's genocide on unborn black Americans today. What numbers? How many people that walk into PP to get an abortion don't get one? How many of those people are refused service due to their race? That is what defines racism. You have provided no such numbers. The procedure coined "partial-birth abortion" by anti-abortion advocates has a specific use in late term miscarriages and abortions under more extreme circumstances. It's a way of preventing damage to the woman in cases where the non-viable fetus is too large to extract.
It's not semantics. It's the "pro-life" movement once again using misinformation and emotional manipulations as arguments. "Dear abortion clinic patrons:
No whities allowed. Sincerely, Planned Parenthood" Cerberus.Pleebo said: » The procedure coined "partial-birth abortion" by anti-abortion advocates has a specific use in late term miscarriages and abortions under more extreme circumstances. It's a way of preventing damage to the woman in cases where the non-viable fetus is too large to extract. It's not semantics. It's the "pro-life" movement once again using misinformation and emotional manipulations as arguments. Oh, I'm sorry. Does changing the names of things to suit an agenda offend you, Mr. Ok, so more terms you don't understand.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Ok, so more terms you don't understand. I understand every one of them. I was just verifying Vic's post and everyone suddenly wants to start a fight with me over utter nonsense. So heck, I'll comply and provide stupid cheap shots too! Keep at it, and maybe you can feel like you've "won" something by the end of the night. Don't imply that support of a valid medical procedure makes you "sick in the head" then.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Don't imply that support of a valid medical procedure makes you "sick in the head" then. Yes, because clearly I was referring to IDX on non-viable babies as opposed to illegal late-term abortions. I can't roll my eyes any harder. Asura.Floppyseconds said: » I am fine with it being legal. That's not a complete answer. Are you fine with viable babies being aborted late term, or are you just referring to instances where the baby and/or mother have a legitimate medical risk? Like Bacon said, legal under the discretion of a physician. I don't see what point you're trying to make.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Like Bacon said, legal under the discretion of a physician. I don't see what point you're trying to make. Holy crap, this isn't that hard. Are you intentionally being dense? Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Surely you can support not intervening in others lives and telling them what they can't do, right? Telling people what they can and can't do is literally what laws are for. No, I do not support abolishing all laws so that people can do whatever they want. Are you intentionally being vague?
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Are you intentionally being vague? Would it matter? Y'all just would rather dance around the issue anyway since I think you're afraid of saying the answer. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Surely you can support not intervening in others lives and telling them what they can't do, right? Telling people what they can and can't do is literally what laws are for. No, I do not support abolishing all laws so that people can do whatever they want. So a law telling a woman what unwanted growth she can have removed and when is fine, but a law that helps ensure she's healthy is tyranny. Lol Not afraid of any answer. I just don't know wtf you're getting at.
Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Surely you can support not intervening in others lives and telling them what they can't do, right? Telling people what they can and can't do is literally what laws are for. No, I do not support abolishing all laws so that people can do whatever they want. Hey, let's keep the government out of peoples lives and from telling them what to do when it benefits us. When we don't like what others do then we can just have the government tell them what to do for us and call it the legal process (see gay marriage for years). What do we call ourselves? Conservatives! Lol, nice deflection. That is so much not even on point that it's hilarious. 5 points out of 10 for the attempt, though. Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Asura.Floppyseconds said: » Surely you can support not intervening in others lives and telling them what they can't do, right? Telling people what they can and can't do is literally what laws are for. No, I do not support abolishing all laws so that people can do whatever they want. So a law telling a woman what unwanted growth she can have removed and when is fine, but a law that helps ensure she's healthy is tyranny. Lol We're beyond the point of "unwanted growth" in this case. We're right into the legality of viable babies being aborted where the mother is not at risk. Do I need to verify that further? How about a 4-page essay? Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Jetackuu said: » The irony is that the two are connected. Oh and fetuses aren't exactly babies, but good "feelz" argument. A child is not a fetus. A partial birth abortion delivers a live baby and kills it savagely. This is what Planned Parenthood has been doing. I can't even believe you are joking about it and the mods allow it. I am honestly surprised you haven't been topicbanned yet. Your misunderstanding of basic science and medical procedures is no reason for anyone to take you seriously though. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.