General political chat

Prince-1

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
You can downplay whatever you like. I used the Webster’s dictionary definition to prove a point. Unfortunately, no one has been able to dispute it. You can swing that however you want, but the fact remains. Based solely on the definition, they are domestic terrorists.
Sorry vandalism is not terrorism. It’s a crime from morons that should be investigated by the police but it’s not terrorism. Have the FBI looked into it??
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
Sorry vandalism is not terrorism. It’s a crime from morons that should be investigated by the police but it’s not terrorism. Have the FBI looked into it??
Again...just use the definition. Whether I agree or not, the definition is clear.

Also take into consideration the threatening letter left with it. When all taken into consideration, the definition seems pretty spot on.
 

Prince-1

Well-Known Member
Again...just use the definition. Whether I agree or not, the definition is clear.

Also take into consideration the threatening letter left with it. When all taken into consideration, the definition seems pretty spot on.
Yeah but it’s not terrorism. Let me know if the FBI gets involved and then maybe it can be called that. Otherwise it’s a group of morons who should be arrested.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
Yeah but it’s not terrorism. Let me know if the FBI gets involved and then maybe it can be called that. Otherwise it’s a group of morons who should be arrested.
He will probably respond with something involving the dictionary definition and ignore the pretty damn high bar people contextually use when they say “terrorism”.
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member

This video shows how a left leaning centrist gets treated based on what you said.
Andrew Breitbart was far far left and after the Clarence Thomas hearings became a conservative. The same with Charles Krauthammer except his awaking was basically over other issues primarily dealing with facts.

Some on this site believe terrorism is only when planes fly into buildings. Then some act of terrorism are labeled work place violence or Overseas contingency operation.
 
Last edited:

aw14

Well-Known Member
He will probably respond with something involving the dictionary definition and ignore the pretty damn high bar people contextually use when they say “terrorism”.
If you read my post, you know I’m only referring to the definition. You’re high bar standard is meaningless when taking into context of the definition.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Sorry vandalism is not terrorism. It’s a crime from morons that should be investigated by the police but it’s not terrorism. Have the FBI looked into it??
I have to disagree here. While it’s not a high level of terrorism like a bomb, in my opinion terrorism is a crime meant to scare a group of people, not just the immediate target. So if this crime was “sending a message” to a certain group of people, then it is a form of terrorism.
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
But my question to you is: is that fair to the child?
Is it fair to force a woman to risk her life for an unborn, unwanted child? To suffer pain birthing an unwanted child? That was my situation , and I already had a child, husband, family. Is it fair to ask someone to die for a "child" who is not yet born? Had things gone south, I would have chosen to save my own life, rather than a nebulous future child, rather than have my existing child grow up without a mother, and my husband without a wife. Other women might make a different choice if faced with the same risk. I guess I'm just selfish in valuing my life over a fetus. Many women would have ended the pregnancy earlier, rather than taking it a day at a time, as I did. Other women would have said the child unborn child comes first - bye-bye daughter and husband. I don't think the law should force someone who did not want a child to go through what I went through.
If we must be "unfair" to someone, I would choose the live person in front of me over the fetus in her abdomen. My opinion only, and I don't expect you to agree. Nor would I try to change your mind about your choice. But as I've already stated before, the fact that I could have an abortion (even late term) if things got too bad was what allowed me to continue the pregnancy by choice - rather than being forced to die for this unknown "child" if things went to hell. If abortion had not been available, I would have had to continue knowing that I could do nothing to prevent my death if things went wrong - which might had caused me to have major post-partum emotional issues. Which might not have been "fair to the child."

Things worked out OK (more or less) in the end, but it was my choice every step of the way.
 

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
Is it fair to force a woman to risk her life for an unborn, unwanted child? To suffer pain birthing an unwanted child? That was my situation , and I already had a child, husband, family. Is it fair to ask someone to die for a "child" who is not yet born? Had things gone south, I would have chosen to save my own life, rather than a nebulous future child, rather than have my existing child grow up without a mother, and my husband without a wife. Other women might make a different choice if faced with the same risk. I guess I'm just selfish in valuing my life over a fetus. Many women would have ended the pregnancy earlier, rather than taking it a day at a time, as I did. Other women would have said the child unborn child comes first - bye-bye daughter and husband. I don't think the law should force someone who did not want a child to go through what I went through.
If we must be "unfair" to someone, I would choose the live person in front of me over the fetus in her abdomen. My opinion only, and I don't expect you to agree. Nor would I try to change your mind about your choice. But as I've already stated before, the fact that I could have an abortion (even late term) if things got too bad was what allowed me to continue the pregnancy by choice - rather than being forced to die for this unknown "child" if things went to hell. If abortion had not been available, I would have had to continue knowing that I could do nothing to prevent my death if things went wrong - which might had caused me to have major post-partum emotional issues. Which might not have been "fair to the child."

Things worked out OK (more or less) in the end, but it was my choice every step of the way.
If the mother's life is truly in danger, that's another situation. But to turn to abortion because the child is unwanted is sad. There are many people who want kids but can't have them. The child can always be put for adoption. But the idea that you can abort a child just because the child is unwanted is immoral.
 

Prince-1

Well-Known Member
If the mother's life is truly in danger, that's another situation. But to turn to abortion because the child is unwanted is sad. There are many people who want kids but can't have them. The child can always be put for adoption. But the idea that you can abort a child just because the child is unwanted is immoral.
It’s not.
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member
So killing a baby because you don't want to take responsibility for your actions is not immoral?
If the mother is in danger of losing her life as you said is another and entirely different situation. Mom made a good case for her situation. It is the exception and goes into a different category for most pro lifers.

Unfettered abortion on demand is not only immoral it is one of the most barbaric acts in the history of the world. It will be judged as such at some point in the not so near future.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
If the mother is in danger of losing her life as you said is another and entirely different situation. Mom made a good case for her situation. It is the exception and goes into a different category for most pro lifers.

Unfettered abortion on demand is not only immoral it is one of the most barbaric acts in the history of the world. It will be judged as such at some point in the not so near future.
It’s a very different issue. Planned Parenthood and NARAL weren’t and aren’t fighting for abortion at any stage because a woman’s life is at risk. They were and are fighting it for ALL women. Because they believe it is a fundamental right of women to choose what and when.

Two very, very different things.
 
Top Bottom