Rodney Ruxin said:

---

Coming from someone who accepts the fact that abortion is largely going to be legal up to a certain point in time almost everywhere, and honestly doesn't have an impulse to fight that (once you pen that box you cant close it, pointless fight), abortion is not and never was a constitutional right. Just purely as a matter of fact. Amazing how people literally just pull made up facts out of their ass.

---

Which would be hard, with his head blocking the exit.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

baby killing isnt funny

---

I don't think they were trying to be funny. They were making a sort of unconventional notion that aborted babies wind up in heaven regardless.

Sort of hard to dismiss that as humor. Even harder to dismiss that as not the case.

Points to the fetus / baby/ ensouled embryonically dependent life form being innocent from clump of cells until some date where they can determine their fate for themselves.

Some folks on either end really need to take a step back from constitutional rights, women's rights, and thou shalt not murder to realize its not that easy to determine how this should and should not be handled.

fka ftc said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

baby killing isnt funny

---

I don't think they were trying to be funny. They were making a sort of unconventional notion that aborted babies wind up in heaven regardless.

Sort of hard to dismiss that as humor. Even harder to dismiss that as not the case.

Points to the fetus / baby/ ensouled embryonically dependent life form being innocent from clump of cells until some date where they can determine their fate for themselves.

Some folks on either end really need to take a step back from constitutional rights, women's rights, and thou shalt not murder to realize its not that easy to determine how this should and should not be handled.

---

It actually is. VERY easy.

The science is settled. Life begins at conception. Period. All the other histrionics is legal mumbo jumbo.

If you abort, you're ending a life. Period. One that, in almost all cases, you partook in activity to make.

That's fine and I respect where you are coming from. But I do not think that is a realistic stance to take and apply to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

The US is not a theocracy. In fact, it was purposefully not. Do some learning on William Penn regarding this.

I am not challenging your personal take and try to convince you some abortion is okay. I am talking about what laws / rules the United States of America should have in place.

murder is murder

if we cant have dont murder babies as a common value of americans regardless if background we have no hope

do you think baby killing should be a shared value?

fka ftc said:

---

That's fine and I respect where you are coming from. But I do not think that is a realistic stance to take and apply to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

The US is not a theocracy. In fact, it was purposefully not. Do some learning on William Penn regarding this.

I am not challenging your personal take and try to convince you some abortion is okay. I am talking about what laws / rules the United States of America should have in place.

---

It doesn't create a theocracy if the government takes action to limit abortion. Just because religious people prefer a position doesn't make it theocratic to support it.

The purpose of government, going back to Locke and Jefferson, is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. I can't come up with a better time to define life than the presence of unique DNA. If there is a better time, I would be interested to hear.

fka ftc said:

---

That's fine and I respect where you are coming from. But I do not think that is a realistic stance to take and apply to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

The US is not a theocracy. In fact, it was purposefully not. Do some learning on William Penn regarding this.

I am not challenging your personal take and try to convince you some abortion is okay. I am talking about what laws / rules the United States of America should have in place.

---

My stance is based 0 on theology and 100%on science. None of your list changes the facts.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

murder is murder

if we cant have dont murder babies as a common value of americans regardless if background we have no hope

do you think baby killing should be a shared value?

---

Such odd takes. Saving a mother of 5's life who was raped and whose in utero child will not survive due to birth defects and the mother will die trying to carry to term.

Let me know where the murder is occurring in all that. Let me add in that the husband killed the rapists and the 2 of the 5 children were killed in a police raid to apprehend the dad.

Go ahead, sort all that out. Do we have no murders, a couple, Maybe 5 murders?

You are trying to argue a point I was not making.

CoachO_08 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

That's fine and I respect where you are coming from. But I do not think that is a realistic stance to take and apply to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

The US is not a theocracy. In fact, it was purposefully not. Do some learning on William Penn regarding this.

I am not challenging your personal take and try to convince you some abortion is okay. I am talking about what laws / rules the United States of America should have in place.

---

It doesn't create a theocracy if the government takes action to limit abortion. Just because religious people prefer a position doesn't make it theocratic to support it.

The purpose of government, going back to Locke and Jefferson, is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. I can't come up with a better time to define life than the presence of unique DNA. If there is a better time, I would be interested to hear.

---

Go back and read the post I was replying too. It wasn't to limit, it was to ELIMINATE. And when you use religion as a basis for your argument, that is theocratic - by definition.

Regarding unique DNA, the coronavirus has a whole bunch of unique DNA. Are we cool with COVID-19 variants being humans?

BigRobSA said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

That's fine and I respect where you are coming from. But I do not think that is a realistic stance to take and apply to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

The US is not a theocracy. In fact, it was purposefully not. Do some learning on William Penn regarding this.

I am not challenging your personal take and try to convince you some abortion is okay. I am talking about what laws / rules the United States of America should have in place.

---

My stance is based 0 on theology and 100%on science. None of your list changes the facts.

---

Again, you stance is noted.

If BigRobSA supports slavery and the raping of non-married women, we are cool with that because its BigRobSA's science?

No sir, your belief is a theological one at best. Science is most certainly not definitive on when "life" begins.

Why? Because we are unable to define the moment. See "unique DNA" nonsense already rebutted.

vast majority of abortions are not foe that

they are for convenence

you think that is a great shared value

over 95% of abortions are not for what you think they are they are just straight up baby killing

end those then you can debate the extreme minority

fka ftc said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

That's fine and I respect where you are coming from. But I do not think that is a realistic stance to take and apply to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

The US is not a theocracy. In fact, it was purposefully not. Do some learning on William Penn regarding this.

I am not challenging your personal take and try to convince you some abortion is okay. I am talking about what laws / rules the United States of America should have in place.

---

It doesn't create a theocracy if the government takes action to limit abortion. Just because religious people prefer a position doesn't make it theocratic to support it.

The purpose of government, going back to Locke and Jefferson, is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. I can't come up with a better time to define life than the presence of unique DNA. If there is a better time, I would be interested to hear.

---

Go back and read the post I was replying too. It wasn't to limit, it was to ELIMINATE. And when you use religion as a basis for your argument, that is theocratic - by definition.

Regarding unique DNA, the coronavirus has a whole bunch of unique DNA. Are we cool with COVID-19 variants being humans?

---

I didn't use religion as an argument. And I haven't in any of my comments on abortion.

"Thou shall not steal" is literally in the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't make it theocratic to support laws against theft.

And humans and viruses are not the same thing. That's an absurd example. I am giving you a point in the human developmental process where I believe life deserves protection. If you have a different point in that process to argue, then I would be interested to hear it.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

vast majority of abortions are not foe that

they are for convenence

you think that is a great shared value

over 95% of abortions are not for what you think they are they are just straight up baby killing

end those then you can debate the extreme minority

---

There is nothing I have said that supports that statement. Its a shame you have to resort to that to discuss it.

I am against abortion for convenience. Against abortion is almost ALL cases. More than 95% you mention. Probably north of 99.5% of abortions should be prohibited.

I am happy to limit the discussion to the extreme. Start a thread and let's go.

CoachO_08 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

CoachO_08 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

That's fine and I respect where you are coming from. But I do not think that is a realistic stance to take and apply to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

The US is not a theocracy. In fact, it was purposefully not. Do some learning on William Penn regarding this.

I am not challenging your personal take and try to convince you some abortion is okay. I am talking about what laws / rules the United States of America should have in place.

---

It doesn't create a theocracy if the government takes action to limit abortion. Just because religious people prefer a position doesn't make it theocratic to support it.

The purpose of government, going back to Locke and Jefferson, is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. I can't come up with a better time to define life than the presence of unique DNA. If there is a better time, I would be interested to hear.

---

Go back and read the post I was replying too. It wasn't to limit, it was to ELIMINATE. And when you use religion as a basis for your argument, that is theocratic - by definition.

Regarding unique DNA, the coronavirus has a whole bunch of unique DNA. Are we cool with COVID-19 variants being humans?

---

I didn't use religion as an argument. And I haven't in any of my comments on abortion.

"Thou shall not steal" is literally in the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't make it theocratic to support laws against theft.

And humans and viruses are not the same thing. That's an absurd example. I am giving you a point in the human developmental process where I believe life deserves protection. If you have a different point in that process to argue, then I would be interested to hear it.

---

Gave you and BigRobSA a nice set of circumstances you can work out.

Reread the bolded part. If you basis of preventing stealing are the 10 commandments, then that is theocratic.

Its why the phrase "we hold these truths to be self evident" versus more controversial wording that mentioned a particular god or creator.

fka ftc said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

That's fine and I respect where you are coming from. But I do not think that is a realistic stance to take and apply to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, etc.

The US is not a theocracy. In fact, it was purposefully not. Do some learning on William Penn regarding this.

I am not challenging your personal take and try to convince you some abortion is okay. I am talking about what laws / rules the United States of America should have in place.

---

My stance is based 0 on theology and 100%on science. None of your list changes the facts.

---

Again, you stance is noted.

If BigRobSA supports slavery and the raping of non-married women, we are cool with that because its BigRobSA's science?

No sir, your belief is a theological one at best. Science is most certainly not definitive on when "life" begins.

Why? Because we are unable to define the moment. See "unique DNA" nonsense already rebutted.

---

Wrong. The BS about unique DNA doesn't change that a life, a codependent one mind you, starts at conception. Again, Any other histrionics doesn't change that scientific fact. Basic biology.

Quote:

---

I am not challenging your personal take and try to convince you some abortion is okay. I am talking about what laws / rules the United States of America should have in place.

---

Let me repeat myself (see above).

Go on and preach if it makes you feel big, but just know you are not discussing a ******* thing at this point.

Just understand it does not solve anything and only leads to the post-natal abortion crowd winning the argument.

I don't base my opposition to anti-theft laws solely on the Ten Commandments.

Again, it is foundational in our belief that government exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. That is not a purely religious belief, but there is a great deal of overlap between that idea and many of the ideas that I would ascribe to Judeo-Christian ethics. One can be supportive of laws against theft and laws limiting abortion in a totally secular and scientific fashion.

Appreciate you seeing my point of view. Blue star for coming around.

fka ftc said:

---

Quote:

---

I am not challenging your personal take and try to convince you some abortion is okay. I am talking about what laws / rules the United States of America should have in place.

---

Let me repeat myself (see above).

Go on and preach if it makes you feel big, but just know you are not discussing a ******* thing at this point.

Just understand it does not solve anything and only leads to the post-natal abortion crowd winning the argument.

---

I'm not discussing, I'm explaining a very simple fact that is well known.

The problem arises, after that very basic fact, whether it's ok to snuff out that new life or not. There in lies the rub. Especially when it's an easy condition to avoid.

OP,

Here's a bit of advice, some things I've learned, and mistakes I've made on F16 -

• Have thick skin and stand your ground - The board is VERY conservative and you know that going in. You're a moderate and you will still get brutally attacked for leaning even the slightest bit left. So what? This is a politics board and public discourse is healthy. Don't ask for permission to share your views. It's easy to be a conservative here. It's a bit more challenging to be anything else and you will be outnumbered in many debates. Welcome to the **** show.
• Be respectful - I have a tendency to lose my **** and post things out of frustration that that make me look like a hypocrite and an *******. The mods have let me know on those occasions. Even if it's not always reciprocated, it's a better look to take the high ground. I'm convinced there's a silent majority of users that notice such things.
• Don't pick fights with individual users - I do this all the time and it's a total waste of energy. There are some very smart, well-informed conservatives on this board that post sparingly and then there are those who hijack healthy debates with aggressive nonsense that contribute nothing to the conversation. Ignore them. Don't respond to hyperbole. It's a trap. Even though only a handful of people might be engaged in a thread, there are countless more reading it. Individual users do not wholly represent the board, or Texas A&M for that matter.
• Be aware that F16 has a memory - You will get labeled in a hurry. Outside of this board, I would probably be considered a left-leaning moderate. On this board, I'm a Marxist and I hate America and apple pie, and support ISIS. For many users, there is no gray. You are either in the tribe, or you are an enemy of the state.
• Avoid these three topics - Gun control, immigration, and abortion. Trust me. The board has made its stance on those perfectly clear and it ain't changing.

BigRobSA said:

---

I'm not discussing, I'm explaining a very simple fact that is well known.

The problem arises, after that very basic fact, whether it's ok to snuff out that new life or not. There in lies the rub. Especially when it's an easy condition to avoid.

---

Right wing elitist are no better than the left wing ones.

Fairly certain I do not need someone explaining to me anything, much left one of the most debated topics of the last 50 years, if not last 50 millenia.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance of the same.

Fair enough, but the last point isn't true. There's a fair amount of disagreement on immigration, guns, and abortion on this board. The majority just aren't sick in the head, so it's a discussion as to why we shouldn't kill babies instead of how long after birth you should be able to kill them like you'd find on Reddit.

I'd say the board is split pretty well down the middle between conservatives and libertarians, with a few lefties sprinkled in that usually get dominated because their ideas are terrible. A few classical liberals that can hold their own on specific issues too.

Yeah, there are disagreements on here about immigration and gun control, but they start waaay right of center.

An immigration debate would be about how high to build the wall and whether or not it's okay to put land mines around it. A gun chat might be about that stupid rule that liquor stores aren't allowed to sell assault rifles to teenagers just because they forgot their driver's license.


(that's a joke. I should have included on my list that you guys have no sense of humor.)

BoerneGator said:

---

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance of the same.

---

Right back at you.

I disagree. There's much more nuance. It's just seen to be super right wing because the culture has moved so far to the left. You can't have a discussion about the ideal amount of immigration when you have a porous border. You can't have a discussion about whether or not we should make exceptions for rape and incest when abortion for convenience is the standard. There's not room to have those nuanced discussions when your starting point is whether or not it's good to trans kids at 5 or 12.

The list goes on and on. In a sane world, there's actually quite a bit of disagreement on this board. In our existing world, you see it as right wing extremism because you accept the ridiculous premises of the left and operate under their rules. We don't.

TxAgswin said:

---

you guys

---

Wow!


Welcome to TA, David Duke!

i dont think an exception should be made for rape
babies shouldnt be murdered for that reason

I remembered this thread mostly because of the discussion somewhere in the middle about the role of the federal government and its effectiveness at responding to large scale issues for those in need. Just curious if any of those that believe that the federal government is necessary for large scale responses have changed their mind considering the absolute abortion that has been the federal response to Helene?