Jump to content

In the News


Ramandu

Recommended Posts


1 minute ago, manboobs109 said:

Address that to Consi, he proposed it.

You're deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying. 
 

The doctor should have no moral input on whether or not she has the baby. 
 

The doctors input should be purely from a medical standpoint, and to advise what is best for the patient, based on both what they want, and how that pertains to their health. 
 

Stop being a dumb dumb 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

So it's not a woman's "right to choose" then.

Jesus fucking wept.

It is to a certain point. 
 

We've covered this already.
 

It is a woman's right to choose, providing her decision isn't likely to cause her harm.

 

You're dragging us all in to technicalities and doubling down because you've made a total, and utter cunt of yourself. 
 

You've shown yourself up to be a simpleton and a hypocrite.  

It's a healthcare issue. It would be treated like any other healthcare issue. 
 

If you get lung cancer and you say you're going to drink spinach smoothies to get rid of it, a doctor, in good conscience, couldn't encourage that or advise it. 
 

The same way, if a woman wants an abortion late on, and the doctor knows it'll cause her harm, they can't in good conscience, advise that they do it/ allow them to have the procedure on their watch. 
 

That woman might be so desperate they seek alternative and drastic measures. 
 

You're spectacularly, as always, missing the point. 

Link to comment

I would like to point out that the whole Roe v Wade thing is less about protecting the sanctity of life and more about religious 'ethics' and forcing women back into a traditional domestic role in society.

Which is why denying women the right to access contraception is also being proposed by SCJ Clarence Thomas.

They WANT women pregnant, they WANT women in a purely child-raising, domestic, secondary role.

The way these people treat fully grown human beings is confirmation that the sanctity of life argument is pure horseshit.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

I would like to point out that the whole Roe v Wade thing is less about protecting the sanctity of life and more about religious 'ethics' and forcing women back into a traditional domestic role in society.

Which is why denying women the right to access contraception is also being proposed by SCJ Clarence Thomas.

They WANT women pregnant, they WANT women in a purely child-raising, domestic, secondary role.

The way these people treat fully grown human beings is confirmation that the sanctity of life argument is pure horseshit.

 

But that's Moobs. 
 

He drinks a whisky drink, he drinks a lager drink. 
 

He finks fings was better in da 70's. 
 

Worlds gone mad. 
 

He drives a white van. 
 

He's a Cunt. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, CCB III said:

It is to a certain point. 
 

We've covered this already.
 

It is a woman's right to choose, providing her decision isn't likely to cause her harm.

 

You're dragging us all in to technicalities and doubling down because you've made a total, and utter cunt of yourself. 
 

You've shown yourself up to be a simpleton and a hypocrite.  
 

Rubbish. It's all about "technicalities" if it's OK to kill an unborn child at 18 weeks why not at 18weeks and 1 day or 2 days?

You've tried your best to turn this into being about me with the constant "you've done this" chat but I'm consistent on this and always have been.

We're all hypocrites to some degree but on this I'm not. It's a necessary evil for medical reasons but in all other circumstances it's wrong. Never said otherwise.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, CCB III said:

But that's Moobs. 
 

He drinks a whisky drink, he drinks a lager drink. 
 

He finks fings was better in da 70's. 
 

Worlds gone mad. 
 

He drives a white van. 
 

He's a Cunt. 

Well, no, I think Moobs is coming from an actual sanctity of life-ish standpoint.

Unfortunately that puts him on the same side of the argument as the religious freaks, the misogymists, and sociopaths who simply want control over others.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

I would like to point out that the whole Roe v Wade thing is less about protecting the sanctity of life and more about religious 'ethics' and forcing women back into a traditional domestic role in society.

Which is why denying women the right to access contraception is also being proposed by SCJ Clarence Thomas.

They WANT women pregnant, they WANT women in a purely child-raising, domestic, secondary role.

The way these people treat fully grown human beings is confirmation that the sanctity of life argument is pure horseshit.

 

I think you can testify to my ignorance of all things American. When I talk about this subject it's not an American "culture war" thing, all that shit passes me by.

Link to comment
Guest Grays Babylon 1875
58 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

No healthy adult human should be getting killed by a constrictor.

We have hands and opposable thumbs... the ultimate tools for combat.... meanwhile a constrictor relies on slowly wrapping itself around a mostly co-operative or helpless victim.

No contest. 

Grab that cunt by the throat and batter it's heid on a rock for its cheek, the cheeky cunt.

The wee poisonous snakes are more dangerous... but, again, you should be able to walk off a venomous bite from your cobras as coral snakes nae bother. 

Maybe take a couple asprin if there are symptoms.

I got attacked by a swarm of marimbondo a few months back.  Little cunts live in dead trees and I was stupid enough to walk over one.

Leg got fucking destroyed.  I'd never seen cunts like these before but was pretty sure I wouldn't die.  For the rest of the day, all day, it was like a mìdget was holding a flame thrower to my ankle.

Walked it off. 

Link to comment
Just now, manboobs109 said:

I think you can testify to my ignorance of all things American. When I talk about this subject it's not an American "culture war" thing, all that shit passes me by.

I'm aware, as you will see in my response to CCB.

However, that brings its own problems.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, CCB III said:

But that's Moobs. 
 

He drinks a whisky drink, he drinks a lager drink. 
 

He finks fings was better in da 70's. 
 

Worlds gone mad. 
 

He drives a white van. 
 

He's a Cunt. 

Och you think that all you want man. Maybe one day something will happen to change your mind on this but I genuinely hope not.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

1.) Rubbish. It's all about "technicalities" if it's OK to kill an unborn child at 18 weeks why not at 18weeks and 1 day or 2 days?

2.) You've tried your best to turn this into being about me with the constant "you've done this" chat but I'm consistent on this and always have been.

3.) We're all hypocrites to some degree but on this I'm not. It's a necessary evil for medical reasons but in all other circumstances it's wrong. Never said otherwise.

1.) That's not for me to declare, not a medical professional. My assertion is women should be given the choice, if they do or do not want to have an abortion, as long as the time they are having it doesn't endanger themselves, in which case, I would advise they follow the advice of a doctor, as I would advise to anyone seeking medical advice on any subject. 
 

2.) You're consistent in that you think abortion is morally wrong. Your reasons for thinking so are personal however, which is OK. But your personal beliefs shouldn't be applied to people making decisions on their own health care. 
 

3.) This is where you're a hypocrite. Throughout the pandemic you bemoaned draconian lockdowns, the vaccine mandates, you felt people should be able to make decisions for their own health, IN SPITE of what many medical health professionals were saying. You believe consistently that people should have the right to chose their own path in life, especially with regards to what they do/don't do to their bodies. That's indisputable, you were complaining about it every fucking day in the covid thread. 
 

Now, because you don't like abortions, you think a woman has to have strictly a medical reason to have one. No other reason will do. This is where your hypocrisy is rampant. You think women shouldn't have full say on what they do/don't do with their bodies, because you don't like the idea of abortion. 
 

It's ridiculous. 
 

Try viewing it as an issue of personal health care, rather than asserting some moral standard you have about it. Look at it objectively, why can't a woman have the right, to decide if she has a kid or not? Why must her reasons meet a standard of yours, or anyone else's for that matter?

 

To sum up; 

 

Laws passed in the UK that coerce people into making a particular medical decision= Moobs angry. 
 

Laws passed in the USA that coerce people into not even having the option of a medical decision= Moobs happy. 
 

You're full of shit. 
 

I've explained my points on it (as I'm sure everyone will agree) in great detail, and about as effectively as I can. 
 

Up to you to reconsider your stance, from a logical, rational POV. Rather than one shrouded in emotion, which I'm sympathetic to, but only to a point. 
 

 

Link to comment
Guest Grays Babylon 1875
3 minutes ago, milne_afc said:

Some light relief. We can all laugh at these morons.

 

Guaranteed to get some bareback sex at that protest.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

Och you think that all you want man. Maybe one day something will happen to change your mind on this but I genuinely hope not.

Like what? Having a partner get an abortion? 
 

Already happened. Was great knowing I didn't have to bring a kid into the world, when I was absolutely nowhere near ready, neither of us were. 
 

What's better; not having the kid at all, or having the kid knowing you're not mature enough to raise it correctly without issues?

 

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, CCB III said:

1.) That's not for me to declare, not a medical professional. My assertion is women should be given the choice, if they do or do not want to have an abortion, as long as the time they are having it doesn't endanger themselves, in which case, I would advise they follow the advice of a doctor, as I would advise to anyone seeking medical advice on any subject. 
 

2.) You're consistent in that you think abortion is morally wrong. Your reasons for thinking so are personal however, which is OK. But your personal beliefs shouldn't be applied to people making decisions on their own health care. 
 

3.) This is where you're a hypocrite. Throughout the pandemic you bemoaned draconian lockdowns, the vaccine mandates, you felt people should be able to make decisions for their own health, IN SPITE of what many medical health professionals were saying. You believe consistently that people should have the right to chose their own path in life, especially with regards to what they do/don't do to their bodies. That's indisputable, you were complaining about it every fucking day in the covid thread. 
 

Now, because you don't like abortions, you think a woman has to have strictly a medical reason to have one. No other reason will do. This is where your hypocrisy is rampant. You think women shouldn't have full say on what they do/don't do with their bodies, because you don't like the idea of abortion. 
 

It's ridiculous. 
 

Try viewing it as an issue of personal health care, rather than asserting some moral standard you have about it. Look at it objectively, why can't a woman have the right, to decide if she has a kid or not? Why must her reasons meet a standard of yours, or anyone else's for that matter?

 

To sum up; 

 

Laws passed in the UK that coerce people into making a particular medical decision= Moobs angry. 
 

Laws passed in the USA that coerce people into not even having the option of a medical decision= Moobs happy. 
 

You're full of shit. 
 

I've explained my points on it (as I'm sure everyone will agree) in great detail, and about as effectively as I can. 
 

Up to you to reconsider your stance, from a logical, rational POV. Rather than one shrouded in emotion, which I'm sympathetic to, but only to a point. 
 

 

There's one big, huge omission from all those words. One which you seem very reluctant to discuss.

Strange that.

 

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

Like what? Having a partner get an abortion? 
 

Already happened. Was great knowing I didn't have to bring a kid into the world, when I was absolutely nowhere near ready, neither of us were. 
 

What's better; not having the kid at all, or having the kid knowing you're not mature enough to raise it correctly without issues?

 

 

Just cos you let some useless tosser blow his beans up your muff.  Well done.

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...