ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I can kinda see the argument that the Republicans "shot first." I really can. But the Dems have tossed so much more back in retaliation. This type of escalating obstruction really should stop. For example, it's not healthy to spend two years investigating a new president on bullshit claims, just because you can't fathom how the other candidate managed to lose a rigged election.

I call total bullshit on that one. You are falling for the lies of a pathological liar.

First, Republicans were in complete control 2016 through 2018. Secondly, Mueller, Rosenstein and company were Republicans appointed by Republicans. Third there was plenty of suspicious activities going on that triggered the appointment of Mueller.

It's interesting how your reasons have nothing logically to do with whether the 2016 election is rigged.

There is evidence, via WikiLeaks, that the Clinton campaign coordinated with the DNC to rig the 2016 Democrat primary. Furthermore, former (interim) DNC chair Donna Brazile wrote a book about it.

There is evidence, via WikiLeaks, that the Clinton campaign coordinated with the mainstream media to give preferential coverage to "Pied Piper" candidates like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primary — meaning they rigged BOTH primaries.

Did they rig the general election? Obviously not well enough. But I'd say that if your organization is choosing both candidates in a general election, that qualifies as rigging the election. The Clinton campaign cheated Bernie and steered the Republican nomination towards the worst candidate they could find and still lost.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I can kinda see the argument that the Republicans "shot first." I really can. But the Dems have tossed so much more back in retaliation. This type of escalating obstruction really should stop. For example, it's not healthy to spend two years investigating a new president on bullshit claims, just because you can't fathom how the other candidate managed to lose a rigged election.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Wikileaks is a Kremlin controlled disinformation outlet.

"

Qiu_Qiu wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

Qiu_Qiu wrote:

(...)

I'm not sure what your getting at with your "loads of kids get made with that 100% safe route".
Give me some fringe article about a women getting pregnant after swallowing or having the guy cum on her belly.

There's plenty of documentation on why pulling out isn't a reliable method on wikipedia.
Unless you are talking about only doing fellatio/handjob/anal, which isn't what most people would understand when reading your previous comment.

That being said, in the case of anal, there's a chance of pregnancy (I don't have the stats, but it's likely very small, as it either requires some damage in the inner membrane, or needs to get through it without a hole), and there's one documented case of fellatio leading to pregnancy, although the circumstances are so absurd that you can't really fault the person, as the sperm got through a gun wound she got after a fellatio, and the sperm went then all the way from the stomach to where it needed to go.
I don't have the references at hand, so feel free to not trust what I am telling you there, as those are "fun facts", not my point which is in my first paragraph.

As for the rest of the discussion, let's face it, many teenagers and young adults are going to have sex without a good understanding of the risks, and "no penetration" speeches have very little influence on that.


On another note, do we have any females here to give their point of view on the matter? They are the most impacted, and should be the ones whose point of view is the most important, right?

"

Boem wrote:

If i tell you "you have a 1 in 100 chance of getting a child using a condom" and you go "okay" and proceed, then the girl gets pregnant, i don't really understand what claim a person can make to end that life.
I can understand the sophistry or the mental gymnastics to justify the action but i fail to see how it's morally correct.

Is the claim of ignorance or bad-luck enough to justify ending a potential life?

It's a moral weighting game, on the one hand justification to let a child live and on the other a justification to let the child die.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

The bottom line is that it isn't alive.

"

Boem wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

The bottom line is that it isn't alive.

I had this fantasy while reading this pop up in my mind of you using that argument against a mother that just had a miscarriage.

"don't worry, it wasn't alive anyway".

Peace,

-Boem-

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"Our prognosis is as follows: since it's already been three weeks, we anticipate around 8 and a half months of coma, possibly less. After that, the patient should awake, but they will have complete amnesia — their mind will be completely blank. They won't know how to feed themselves, drink from a cup, talk, walk, crawl, or use the bathroom. An estimated three years of intense rehabilitation therapy will be required to retrain these basic skills. Even then, a great many more advanced life skills, important pieces of general knowledge, and pearls of wisdom will be missing. We estimate a full recovery would take about 16-20 years."

When put in the proper context, pulling the plug becomes noticeably more tempting.

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

It’s one thing to be against someone making a certain decision and another to be against them having the option to make that decision in the first place.