Jump to content

In the News


Ramandu

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Re bold: Griswold v Connecticut dealt with the anti-contraception law of one particular state.  Is it really the case that many states have anti-contraception laws which would suddenly kick in if the Court said there was no constitutional right to contraception?  I would be genuinely surprised if there was (maybe in the past, but surely not now?). 

Contraception is bad in that people do not accept the reality that it will sometimes let them down.  Then they demand to kill the unborn as a "get out of jail" card, and that is just not acceptable in a civilised society.

I do not think Griswold is mentioned due to targeting contraception, but because it formed the basis of precedent for subsequent erroneous cases such as Roe-Wade, as well as the erroneous notions of a "right" to commit homosexual acts (anyone capable of reason should know that error has no rights) and a "right" to homosexual marriage (of course homosexual couples are not analogous to a marriage).

I think Thomas is just sabre rattling, but it would be good to strike down the nonsense of "gay marriage" (just as a Japanese court did, the other day).  The idea is a nonsense and it is not healthy for societies to equate homosexual acts with human sexuality - and especially not when western societies are already suffering a demographic winter.

Usually I am peaceable and do not care to "rake up old graves", but the gay marriage crowd were such cunts over it - hounding people through courts over making cakes etc - that I would be glad to see the court strike it down, just for the badness of it.

Edit - the business of carrying and raising children is in no way "secondary".  it is misogynistic of you to suggest that.  it is the foundation stone of human progress, and there is nothing nobler.

Last one; 

 

It's also misogynist to apply your own moral standards to a woman who has a baby of rape in her womb. 
 

You're effectively saying 'yeah but I don't care what you think or how you feel, you're having that baby no matter how bad it might be for you' 

 

 

Link to comment

Guest Grays Babylon 1875
12 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

It's nothing to do with my feelings. That is completely irrelevant. I've seen a foetus with my own eyes that is legal to "abort" I've seen it breathe and struggle for life.

 

For fucks sake. 

You've some strange hobbies man. 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I agree they are victims, of course.

See my reply to Dons79 - I address this there.

But is it not feckless women who need abortions?

These are clearly not that.

You advocate for imposing forced birth on these victims.

Some of whom will be children, already violated by man, and you will do further damage to their fragile, still growing bodies by forcing them through pregnancy and childbirth on not fully formed wombs, cervixes and birth canals.

But you see no harm in that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

It's nothing to do with my feelings. That is completely irrelevant. I've seen a foetus with my own eyes that is legal to "abort" I've seen it breathe and struggle for life.

If you tell me that it isn't a baby I'll tell you you are badly mistaken. 

Again I ask you if it's a woman's "right to choose" why is there a legal limit? It's not true it's for the mother's safety, it's easier and safer to deliver a baby closer to term so why does the legal limit exist?

It's a woman's right to chose so long as it isn't going to kill her. In most instances if someone is going to do something that's going to end up in their death, people stop them. That's standard. Not new. 
 

1.) So it is to do with your feelings, because you experienced something awful, saw something awful, and now you personally can't understand why it's allowed. Thats ok big man. That's cool. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. 
 

What you can't do with your feelings, is assert that someone can't have autonomy over something growing inside their own body. You can think what they do is wrong, have an opinion on it, but you can't assert that they can't do it. It's not for you to decide. 
 

That's the long and short of it. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

You always go back to the "grape sized" thing. I've seen a 24 week old foetus in the flesh. It's a baby. You can "abort" one in this country and its chucked in the waste and incinerated with no ceremony. 

If you feel that's a good thing and a "right" worth defending I respect that but I'm telling you one last time hold back on the insults for me for not thinking that. If you claim to "respect me" for thinking the way I do then act like it and calm your rhetoric.

You keep saying you don't like it.

We get it someone aborted your jizz and it scarred you.

Seek help.

Do not damage others in anger and resentment.

Be a man.

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Re bold: Griswold v Connecticut dealt with the anti-contraception law of one particular state.  Is it really the case that many states have anti-contraception laws which would suddenly kick in if the Court said there was no constitutional right to contraception?  I would be genuinely surprised if there was (maybe in the past, but surely not now?). 

Contraception is bad in that people do not accept the reality that it will sometimes let them down.  Then they demand to kill the unborn as a "get out of jail" card, and that is just not acceptable in a civilised society.

I do not think Griswold is mentioned due to targeting contraception, but because it formed the basis of precedent for subsequent erroneous cases such as Roe-Wade, as well as the erroneous notions of a "right" to commit homosexual acts (anyone capable of reason should know that error has no rights) and a "right" to homosexual marriage (of course homosexual couples are not analogous to a marriage).

I think Thomas is just sabre rattling, but it would be good to strike down the nonsense of "gay marriage" (just as a Japanese court did, the other day).  The idea is a nonsense and it is not healthy for societies to equate homosexual acts with human sexuality - and especially not when western societies are already suffering a demographic winter.

Usually I am peaceable and do not care to "rake up old graves", but the gay marriage crowd were such cunts over it - hounding people through courts over making cakes etc - that I would be glad to see the court strike it down, just for the badness of it.

Edit - the business of carrying and raising children is in no way "secondary".  it is misogynistic of you to suggest that.  it is the foundation stone of human progress, and there is nothing nobler.

Hey bud. Gay people exist. They always have. They always will. 
 

Hey bud, women will get abortions, they will continue to do so. 
 

No amount of religious principle you apply to your thinking, to any scenario being discussed, will make these things change. 
 

Laws should reflect what people are going to do; not what pointless religious principle you want them to unrealistically abide by. 

 

All you're doing is judging people for the crime of being human beings. 
 

It makes you seem like a cunt. 
 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, manboobs109 said:

No, you really don't. If you did you wouldn't have been as abusive as you have been.

 

Mind that time you got steaming, posted about 10 abusive posts about me, then got up the next day and said you stood by them all? 

So don't play the fucking victim now. 
 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Parklife said:

Mind that time you got steaming, posted about 10 abusive posts about me, then got up the next day and said you stood by them all? 

So don't play the fucking victim now. 
 

No need to kick him when he's down, Parko. 
 

He's had a rough night. 

Link to comment
Guest milne_afc
4 minutes ago, CCB III said:

Anyway...

 

Fellow question time watchers; 

 

This woman sticking up for him last night was actually his birds ma'

 

BBC can categorically no longer be called an impartial news source. A fucking farce. 

 

I had a look at that earlier and dinna think it is. Pity, because it could’ve been a great story.

Link to comment
Guest Grays Babylon 1875
5 minutes ago, CCB III said:

Anyway...

 

Fellow question time watchers; 

 

This woman sticking up for him last night was actually his birds ma'

 

BBC can categorically no longer be called an impartial news source. A fucking farce. 

 

Mick Jagger looking no bad. 

Link to comment
Guest Grays Babylon 1875
5 minutes ago, CCB III said:

No need to kick him when he's down, Parko. 
 

He's had a rough night. 

Aye mostly cos of you ya wee angry weapon. 

Pipe doon with the personal stuff.  

Nae good likes.  All mates here.  

Even @BrianFaePerth

Link to comment
Guest Grays Babylon 1875
Just now, CCB III said:

I certainly won't. I get personally slaughtered on here every day. 
 

The nastier the better

and rightly so. 

Junkies are a scourge.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Sooper-hanz said:

It’s similar but not the same person 

Yet Consi states it is.

Denies taking drugs when he ran riot under his previous username.

States BA made a 2 million profit when it was a 4 million loss.

You still think he’s schooled everybody Hanz ?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Joe pike said:

Yet Consi states it is.

Denies taking drugs when he ran riot under his previous username.

States BA made a 2 million profit when it was a 4 million loss.

You still think he’s schooled everybody Hanz ?

1.) Winding up cunts on here 

2.) Corrected myself accordingly

with regards to that post, didn't inspect it fully, now realise it wasn't her ma.' 
 

How that might detract from anything else I've said, I'm not sure. 

Link to comment
Just now, CCB III said:

1.) Winding up cunts on here 

2.) Corrected myself accordingly

with regards to that post, didn't inspect it fully, now realise it wasn't her ma.' 
 

How that might detract from anything else I've said, I'm not sure. 

Well when you’re caught telling lies and making mistakes it’s hard to take anything you say seriously.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Joe pike said:

Well when you’re caught telling lies and making mistakes it’s hard to take anything you say seriously.

Only if I don't admit to the mistakes. Or I'm disingenuous about them. 
 

As for telling lies about taking drugs; 

 

So fuck? It's a forum of degenerate sleazebag arseholes. There's no right or wrong here

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Mind that time you got steaming, posted about 10 abusive posts about me, then got up the next day and said you stood by them all? 

So don't play the fucking victim now. 
 

What did I say? That you are a smug, patronising, superior arsehole who likes posting creepshots of women while simultaneously calling others mysogynistic? Or that you are a fucking boring cunt who stays up for the superbowl and wears NFL tops but sneers at others for having an English team? 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, maryhilldon said:

Only because you post FAR too much, you're rude and insulting, youre often mistaken and have to apologise. And, quite frankly, you're incredibly irritating. That'll be why.

Point 1.) Probs agree

 

point 2.) no more so than you or anyone else 

 

point 3.) no more so than anyone else, aside from the fact I actually hold my hands up 

 

point 4.) That's just like, your opinion, man 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...