As Senate Bill Dies, President Trump, Mitch McConnell Call for Clean Repeal of Obamacare Now, Replacement Later

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IAMX said:

What you consider logical is really irrelevant, part of representation is voting and paying taxes, so whether or not you think they're being logical, or want to subjectively call their subjective views wrong, they're entitled to demand their taxes not go to fund abortions, and they're not wrong.

 

Having abortions legal isn't enough for the left (the discussion of the legality of abortion is amusing since it isn't being debated here), they demand others cover their baby killing endeavors and act as if it has anything to do with womens rights. The left today have pretty much no idea what rights are, and clearly are likewise devoid of the concept of responsibility that comes with those rights.

I only brought up the legality since someone else called it "murder".

 

I'm all for discussing people's "rights".

 

I agree that citizens have the right to be involved in what their taxes are spent on. 

 

They don't, however, have the right to try to stop other people from exercising their right to a procedure that is perfectly okay and legal. Abortion isn't murder. It is legal. Women have the right to it.

[smilesammich 10,727]

abortions aren't always willful terminations, first of all. this is most certainly an issue of women's rights.

but good to know poor women get themselves pregnant. lol, spare me.

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

They don't, however, have the right to try to stop other people from exercising their right to a procedure that is perfectly okay and legal. Abortion isn't murder. It is legal. Women have the right to it.

Reasserting the right of abortion doesn't make your argument any more logical, it's not being debated. So I have no idea why this continually comes up as if it is.

 

The issue at hand are taxpayers being liable for the dumb choice of abortions women make. Taxpayers not wanting their money to fund another person's abortions has no implications whatsoever on the right of abortions. It's a red herring. It's laughable that anyone would consider a womans right of abortion at any risk just because someone doesn't want their taxes funding it.

Edited July 19, 2017 by IAMX

[smilesammich 10,727]

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Reasserting the right of abortion doesn't make your argument any more logical, it's not being debated. So I have no idea why this continually comes up as if it is.

 

The issue at hand are taxpayers being liable for the dumb choice of abortions women make. Taxpayers not wanting their money to fund another person's abortions has no implications whatsoever on the right of abortions. It's a red herring. It's laughable that anyone would consider a womans right of abortion at any risk just because someone doesn't want their taxes funding it.

*Head against wall*

 

Are you just willfully not reading what I'm writing?

 

I didn't originally quote you. Someone else called abortion murder. When you call it murder you ARE questioning the "legality" of it (murder is obviously illegal). So while you are not questioning it, someone else here clearly was. I was responding to that. You can't call abortion murder. It is a legal medical procedure in this country. It is not murder.

 

57 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Abortions should not be tax payer funded period. Weather or not they should be legal is another debate but tax payers should not be forced to pay for the murder of babies.

Making that statement is questioning the legality of the procedure. If you call a procedure murder you are implying it should be illegal.

 

He tried to avoid bringing up the discussion, but ended his post with it being asserted as fact. That is not how a discussion works.

 

"Whether people should have the right to bear arms is another debate, but bearing arms is illegal" 

Edited July 19, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

*Head against wall*

 

Are you just willfully not reading what I'm writing?

 

I didn't originally quote you. Someone else called abortion murder. When you call it murder you ARE questioning the "legality" of it (murder is obviously illegal). So while you are not questioning it, someone else here clearly was. I was responding to that. You can't call abortion murder. It is a legal medical procedure in this country. It is not murder.

Murder isn't solely a legal term (animal rights activists regularly call meat eaters murderers). So correcting them as if it is, is just as subjectively pointless and wrong. If they suggested someone be criminally liable for having the abortion (as in charged with murder), then you have a point.

Edited July 19, 2017 by IAMX

[CaliCat 3,957]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

I only brought up the legality since someone else called it "murder".

 

I'm all for discussing people's "rights".

 

I agree that citizens have the right to be involved in what their taxes are spent on. 

 

They don't, however, have the right to try to stop other people from exercising their right to a procedure that is perfectly okay and legal. Abortion isn't murder. It is legal. Women have the right to it.

 

LOL. 

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Murder isn't solely a legal term (animal rights activists regularly call meat eaters murderers). So correcting them as if it is, is just as subjectively pointless and wrong.

I don't know why I bother sometimes. I'll gladly include animal rights activists who call meat eaters murderers in my bucket of "idiots".

 

mur·der

ˈmərdər/

noun

 

1. 1.

   the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

   "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

   synonyms:

   killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter,butchery, massacre; More

verb

 

1. 1.

   kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

   "somebody tried to murder Joe"

   synonyms:

   kill, put to death, assassinate, execute, liquidate, eliminate, dispatch, butcher,slaughter, massacre, wipe out; More

Edited July 19, 2017 by bcking

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Funny how some people who are pro live care about a baby when it's inside a womb but as soon as it comes out they magically all of sudden don't care about it.

Edited July 19, 2017 by JimandChristy

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't know why I bother sometimes. I'll gladly include animal rights activists who call meat eaters murderers in my group of "idiots".

 

mur·der

ˈmərdər/

noun

 

1. 1.

   the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

   "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

   synonyms:

   killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter,butchery, massacre; More

verb

 

1. 1.

   kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

   "somebody tried to murder Joe"

   synonyms:

   kill, put to death, assassinate, execute, liquidate, eliminate, dispatch, butcher,slaughter, massacre, wipe out; More

I don't know why you bother either. I point out that murder isn't solely a legal term, so you cut and paste a tiny fraction of an uncited dictionary link and exclude all the non-legalese definitions (dictionary.com's lists 10, of which 2 of them are legal definitions)..

 

lol.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

11 minutes ago, IAMX said:

I don't know why you bother either. I point out that murder isn't solely a legal term, so you cut and paste a tiny fraction of an uncited dictionary link and exclude all the non-legalese definitions (dictionary.com's lists 10, of which 2 of them are legal definitions)..

 

lol.

 

 

Sigh...

 

The word was used as a verb. Lets use a real dictionary then; Oxford English Dictionary (apologise for some formatting errors when I copy/paste). My thoughts in bold.

 

Verb:

1. Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

‘he was accused of murdering his wife's lover’

This seems to fit with the way the word was used. "Murder of babies".

2. Informal punish severely or be very angry with.

‘my father will murder me if I'm home late’

I highly doubt the other poster intended to imply that the babies would be "severely punished or be very angry with..."

3. Conclusively defeat (an opponent) in a game or sport.

 Don't think he was claiming he was going to defeat a bunch of babies

4. Spoil by lack of skill or knowledge

I highly doubt he was implying he lacked knowledge of babies

5. British - Consume (food or drink) greedily or with relish

I really hope he didn't imply he wanted to eat babies

 

Using a second example in which a word is used incorrectly doesn't justify using the word incorrectly. I don't care if other groups use the word "murder" wrong. That just means they are also idiots.

 

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person, when used as a verb and intended to imply killing someone. It is specifically referring to a case where it is unlawful. People can use it "loosely" if they want, but they are using it wrong.

Edited July 19, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

Sigh...

 

The word was used as a verb. Lets use a real dictionary then; Oxford English Dictionary (apologise for some formatting errors when I copy/paste). My thoughts in bold.

 

Verb:

1. Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

‘he was accused of murdering his wife's lover’

This seems to fit with the way the word was used. "Murder of babies".

2. Informal punish severely or be very angry with.

‘my father will murder me if I'm home late’

I highly doubt the other poster intended to imply that the babies would be "severely punished or be very angry with..."

3. Conclusively defeat (an opponent) in a game or sport.

 Don't think he was claiming he was going to defeat a bunch of babies

4. Spoil by lack of skill or knowledge

I highly doubt he was implying he lacked knowledge of babies

5. British - Consume (food or drink) greedily or with relish

I really hope he didn't imply he wanted to eat babies

 

Using a second example in which a word is used incorrectly doesn't not justify using the word incorrectly. I don't care if other groups use the word "murder" wrong. That just means they are also idiots.

 

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person, when used as a verb and intended to imply killing someone. It is specifically referring to a case where it is unlawful. People can use it "loosely" if they want, but they are using it wrong.

Unless they're suggesting that people be jailed for it, I don't assume the legalese definition of anything. You're free to do so, but it's laughable that in your own inflexibility (something that is contradicting to the purpose of language and intent by the deliverer) you call others wrong.

 

Edited July 19, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Unless they're suggesting that people be jailed for it, I don't assume the legalese definition of anything. You're free to do so, but it's laughable that in your own inflexibility (something that is contradicting to the purpose of language and intent by the deliverer) you call others wrong.

When talking about killing someone, murder IS "legalese". The word murder only exists to define what is an unlawful killing. That is it's purpose.

 

You can use the word "kill" without implying any "legalese". Murder, by it's literal definition, is legalese.

 

I love that the English language is flexible...but sometimes people butcher it and abuse it all for the sake of "flexibility". We have to have boundaries. Words have meanings and there are perfectly reasonable alternate words you can use to imply something else. Not using those alternate words is just screaming ignorance. 

 

He could have just as easily said "killing babies". I would argue that statement for different reasons (because you aren't killing a baby when you abort a fetus), but I wouldn't argue that he was claiming the abortions were illegal. Murder is illegal. Killing is not necessarily illegal depending on the circumstance. We have to, at some point, stop letting people destroy the English language by using words incorrectly.

Edited July 19, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

this is so ridiculous. there are other of medical procedures that particular taxpayers don't agree with. see jehovahs witnesses and blood transfusions. why should jehovahs witnesses' tax dollars go toward paying for poor people's blood transfusions? smh. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by smilesammich

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

When talking about killing someone, murder IS "legalese". The word murder only exists to define what is an unlawful killing. That is it's purpose.

 

You can use the word "kill" without implying any "legalese". Murder, by it's literal definition, is legalese.

 

I love that the English language is flexible...but sometimes people butcher it and abuse it all for the sake of "flexibility". We have to have boundaries. Words have meanings and there are perfectly reasonable alternate words you can use to imply something else. Not using those alternate words is just screaming ignorance. 

So people must use alternate words because some random person on the internet cannot fathom a word, that has far more non-legal definitions than legal, being potentially used in a non-legal context..

 

Whew, this is bad.