-2

I really hope for a Palin/Clinton race in '16, just so America can go- "Okay, we've taken this too far" and elect the man that's running third party. Talk about progress.

42%Agree58%Disagree
miffedmuffins avatar Politics
Share
1 16

Based on your previous posts, I agree that you really hope this

Palin is far more intelligent than people give her credit for. It's really sad how badly she was portrayed in 2008.

@JeffGigliotti Palin is far more intelligent than people give her credit for. It's really sad how badly she was portrayed in 2008.

I can agree to an extent...she was unfairly treated and is not stupid. Nor is Clinton. The thing is, they've done, do, or agree with stupid things. In my opinion obviously. No real change until a third party is given a chance. Until we get someone in office who actually values individual freedom, not just on the issues they like.

What on earth are you talking about? This situation is not going to happen ever...

@SpearmintMilk What on earth are you talking about? This situation is not going to happen ever...

I'm being sarcastic sillybear, of course it wouldn't happen. This is about America realizing the two party system is absurd, both parties are awful, and we need to elect a third party. Preferably, a Libertarian.

@SpearmintMilk I think Hillary Clinton would make a good leader for the U.S.

Yes because a woman who slipped Partial Birth Abortion in one of those bills Congress doesn't read through is morally sound and should lead our country. How about we pick someone who doesn't think it's okay to induce labor and then stab a baby in the base of the neck with scissors, eh?

@miffedmuffin Yes because a woman who slipped Partial Birth Abortion in one of those bills Congress doesn't read through is...

-sigh- No she didn't, she voted no on banning partial birth abortions, not the same thing (unless you can show me a reliable source as I am unable to find one saying that she did anything other than vote no) She voted no because it didn't include the exception of the ban if the woman's health was in danger (not just life as the bill made the exception for) or if the foetus will have major birth defects and die soon after being born. Anyway most partial birth abortions are really rare and mostly preformed before the foetus is viable to survive outside the uterus but as soon as it takes a breath it is considered a person even if it suffers for hours before finally dying. Look no one likes the idea of partial birth abortions but sometimes they are medically needed.

@SpearmintMilk -sigh- No she didn't, she voted no on banning partial birth abortions, not the same thing (unless you can show me a...

That's like saying look, no one likes slavery but sometimes the kitchen needs cleaned. There is no excuse for stabbing a baby in the head with scissors. Not. One. The fact that you can so casually talk about it like we're not talking about a fucking baby is morally appalling.

@miffedmuffin That's like saying look, no one likes slavery but sometimes the kitchen needs cleaned. There is no excuse for...

No the two aren't comparable, nice use of a logical fallacy though y smilie
There are reasons where a foetus (not a baby) may need to be aborted past the first trimester. They include where the mother's life/health is in danger and if the foetus will have severe birth defects/ health conditions. I personally find it morally appalling that you would put the life of a foetus above a living person or forcing her to go through the trauma of carrying it full term only to give birth and have to watch her baby live for a few hours in horrible pain before dying.

@SpearmintMilk No the two aren't comparable, nice use of a logical fallacy though There are reasons where a foetus (not a...

I forgot the magical oxygen turns them into babies! Take a biology class. At no point is the baby not human, or not alive. I love how you just said it isn't a baby, isn't human, isn't even alive...but that would be forcing a mother to hold her dying "baby"? It is only a baby if she wanted it? It's only a baby after it comes out? That makes no sense.

Maybe we should just kill off kids with cancer, so they're parents don't have to watch them die.

@SpearmintMilk No the two aren't comparable, nice use of a logical fallacy though There are reasons where a foetus (not a...

Also here's a little history lesson for you too, the word fetus is Latin for offspring or to bring forth children. So not only is it not cute to try and devalue what biology teaches us is human life, it actually makes you look really stupid when that's exactly what it means.

@miffedmuffin Also here's a little history lesson for you too, the word fetus is Latin for offspring or to bring forth children...

When did I say that the baby wasn't alive or human? Oh that's right I didn't. It is biologically alive and biologically a human - no arguments there. What I was saying is that it is legally a person once it is born alive. And once it is born it is scientifically not a foetus as the current definition of foetus is "an unborn offspring of a mammal - in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception". Sorry for using the correct terms. Also what the fuck do you mean kill off kids with cancer so their parents don't have to watch them die? Once again you are using an example that is not comparable.

@SpearmintMilk When did I say that the baby wasn't alive or human? Oh that's right I didn't. It is biologically alive and...

"I personally find it morally appalling that you would put the life of a foetus above a living person" insinuating they are not living humans.

Speaking legalistic personhood means nothing. The law also said African American's were less than human at one point. This is just one more barbaric, uncivilized practice of devaluing human life for convenience.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.