• Protesters Hang ‘RESIST’ Banner From Crane Near White House
    233 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51725358]The majority of Americans didn't want Trump. Nor do a majority support his racist and fascist rhetoric.[/QUOTE] A majority of Americans didn't want Hillary either. About half of Americans didn't even vote. Trump is a moron, but can we please stop calling him an illegitimate ruler just because he lost the popular vote?
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726564]Nice reading skills. He's not defunding planned parenthood, he stated that in no unclear terms. He said he's changing it so it no longer supports abortion. Taking away your ability to legally have your fetus killed is not a right, and never should be. Not exactly a doomsday scenario. Besides, while i'm not well versed in US law, is it not true that states can legalise abortion if the federal level deems it illegal?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/314675-trump-abortion-and-womens-health"]Republicans literally vowed to defund Planned Parenthood under the guise of abolishing federal funding of abortions.[/URL] It's the age old joke of "Republicans care about state rights, until it has to do with what women do with their bodies." [editline]25th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;51726582]A majority of Americans didn't want Hillary either. About half of Americans didn't even vote. Trump is a moron, but can we please stop calling him an illegitimate ruler just because he lost the popular vote?[/QUOTE] I never said he was an illegitimate ruler. This is in response to the people stating that people shouldn't be exercising their rights to protest against Trump.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51726583][url="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/314675-trump-abortion-and-womens-health"]Republicans literally vowed to defund Planned Parenthood under the guise of abolishing federal funding of abortions.[/url] [editline]25th January 2017[/editline] I never said he was an illegitimate ruler. This is in response to the people stating that people shouldn't be exercising their rights to protest against Trump.[/QUOTE] Exactly this. The republican plan is not simply just excising the ability to provide abortion-related services from Planned Parenthood: instead, they're being oh so delightful and just shuttering the whole goddamn thing
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;51725331]it's not judging by the vocabulary of them "climbing" the crane.[/QUOTE] Climbing a crane has nothing to do with legal wording, that's really what it's called to get up to the top.
[QUOTE=paindoc;51726580]And why do you get to say this? Who gets to decide if this is or is not my right? I'm a dude. I have [I][B]NO[/B][/I] idea what pregnancy is like, I don't have to worry about being raped and getting pregnant, I don't have to worry about getting pregnant and having the father disappear, and so on, but I don't see any option but being [I]entirely[/I] pro-choice and ceding this matter to qualified individuals. Those being: 1. Women, duh 2. Doctors specializing in neonatal care, since they have a good idea of when a baby becomes a baby and not a lump of vaguely human-shaped cells 3. Anyone willing to listen to the above two types of people, and vote/think/argue rationally on their behalf Access to abortions is vital for maintaining a healthy and happy community in low income areas. This is a tragedy into and of itself, but it's not going away if we just sorta bury the problem and ignore it. No one loves or enjoys abortions, but they're a necessary reality of life. There is no reason anyone, in 2017, should be pro-life. Especially not if you're a dude.[/QUOTE] Damn you saw right through my disguise as a senior US policymaker. It's a response to people saying Trump will take away women's rights. Abortion is the only thing Trump is taking away, and it's not a right. It's still illegal or highly restricted in a lot of places. I don't care who chooses whether it is or not.
[QUOTE=srobins;51726572]All I can say is you should try taking a biology class before you try and foist unwanted children into the arms of unwilling and unable mothers.[/QUOTE] If he's unwilling to do that, he should be forced to adopt some of those unwanted children and take care of them. It's easy to lecture others about how they should live when it doesn't affect you and you have no responsibility in the matter.
[QUOTE=srobins;51726572]I'm not talking about him wiping the pages on the website, I agree that it's reasonable for the transition to include a temporary wipe of government pages. What I take issue with is issuing a gagging order to the ESA and telling them they're not allowed to interact with the public or the press, and silencing their social media accounts. How is [I]that[/I] reasonable? [/QUOTE] Cause he doesn't want them talking about crap in mid-transition? I know this seems nuts, but you know this happens? Oh what, Obama and Bush have done this? [quote]Washington, DC — U.S. Forest Service staff are under new orders not to speak to news reporters about politically sensitive issues, according to a directive released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). This gag order resembles those issued by the Bush administration, belying vows by the Obama administration of government transparency.[/quote] [url]http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/obama-gag-order-on-federal-workers-like-those-under-bush.html[/url] I'm sure multiple presidents in the past have done this. Just super sensational if you don't like the guy.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51726631]Cause he doesn't want them talking about crap in mid-transition? I know this seems nuts, but you know this happens? Oh what, Obama and Bush have done this? [url]http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/obama-gag-order-on-federal-workers-like-those-under-bush.html[/url] I'm sure multiple presidents in the past have done this. Just super sensational if you don't like the guy.[/QUOTE] That was two years after his administration had begun. How long did this policy last?
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726617]It's a response to people saying Trump will take away women's rights. Abortion is the only thing Trump is taking away, and it's not a right. It's still illegal or highly restricted in a lot of places. I don't care who chooses whether it is or not.[/QUOTE] You're contradicting yourself. If he's 'taking away' abortion, that implies women had the right to abortions to some extent, which is now being taken away. With your own arguments that I've quoted, that logically leads directly to the conclusion that Trump is taking away at least one of women's rights.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51726638]That was two years after his administration had begun. How long did this policy last?[/QUOTE] Ah, the Goal posts have now changed. Who cares about the time sensitivity when we don't even know what happens when the EPA website comes back up.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726617]Damn you saw right through my disguise as a senior US policymaker. It's a response to people saying Trump will take away women's rights. Abortion is the only thing Trump is taking away, and it's not a right. It's still illegal or highly restricted in a lot of places. I don't care who chooses whether it is or not.[/QUOTE] Considering the number of pitfalls that can happen in any pregnancy, never mind one with complications such as eclampsia, sudden fetal death, and so forth that bear a huge risk to mother and baby, I'm damn well rooting for the fact that abortion should be legal until 24 weeks of pregnancy. Unwanted children then become less of a problem, and foster care isnt strained by a huge number of unwanted babies, while those babies born have a better shot at surviving to adulthood.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51726631]Cause he doesn't want them talking about crap in mid-transition? I know this seems nuts, but you know this happens? Oh what, Obama and Bush have done this? [url]http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/obama-gag-order-on-federal-workers-like-those-under-bush.html[/url] I'm sure multiple presidents in the past have done this. Just super sensational if you don't like the guy.[/QUOTE] Admittedly, I am somewhat.. "eased" isn't the right word, but at least relieved there's some precedent for what is still horrible behavior imo. But I think combined with Trump's overtly anti-fact and anti-environment rhetoric this is still more concerning than usual. [editline]25th January 2017[/editline] Not to mention Trump's motives are clear and markedly different from Obama's: Obama didn't want details of his implementation of environmental policy to be immediately public, which is seedy and anti-transparent, but nowhere near the same level of threateningly anti-intellectual as trying to scrub and censor actual scientific data and facts about the environment from being made public. One is censorship of policy/process (bad), one is suppression of science and [I]fact[/I] (worse).
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51726640]You're contradicting yourself. If he's 'taking away' abortion, that implies women had the right to abortions to some extent, which is now being taken away. With your own arguments that I've quoted, that logically leads directly to the conclusion that Trump is taking away at least one of women's rights.[/QUOTE] Just because it exists doesn't mean it's a right and not one everyone agrees on. If you actually want to say 'trump is taking away rights' I'll take it seriously when it's second amendment, free speech and so on, not a hotly contested issue that is illegal and restricted in a lot of places that has never been described as a constitutional right. The government can lower your social security because you don't have a right to it. If you're insinuating that because it's being taken away, the people must have a right to it - you are simply delusional.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726617]Damn you saw right through my disguise as a senior US policymaker. It's a response to people saying Trump will take away women's rights. Abortion is the only thing Trump is taking away, and it's not a right. It's still illegal or highly restricted in a lot of places. I don't care who chooses whether it is or not.[/QUOTE] Abortion is a right, the right to your own bodily integrity. Restricting access to safe abortions will not reduce the number of abortions, it will just result in a lot of dead women.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51726650]Considering the number of pitfalls that can happen in any pregnancy, never mind one with complications such as eclampsia, sudden fetal death, and so forth that bear a huge risk to mother and baby, I'm damn well rooting for the fact that abortion should be legal until 24 weeks of pregnancy. Unwanted children then become less of a problem, and foster care isnt strained by a huge number of unwanted babies, while those babies born have a better shot at surviving to adulthood.[/QUOTE] Ok. I'm not discussing whether or not it should be legal or moral, my original point is don't pretend we're in a war against some tyrannical dictator when Trump pushes some legislation that takes one side of a particularly contested issue. It's not 'women's care' it's not a constitutional right, it's a privilege the state has thus far extended to the people, it had now decided to rescind it. It's not genocide.
[QUOTE=CatFodder;51726749]Abortion is a right, the right to your own bodily integrity. Restricting access to safe abortions will not reduce the number of abortions, it will just result in a lot of dead women.[/QUOTE] And unwanted children possibly growing up in abusive households. And the mothers of said children lacking spending power to financially move up. And said child growing up in poverty, to stay in poverty, and to possibly reciprocate the cycle due to our abysmal sexual education.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726753]Ok. I'm not discussing whether or not it should be legal or moral, my original point is don't pretend we're in a war against some tyrannical dictator when Trump pushes some legislation that takes one side of a particularly contested issue. It's not 'women's care' it's not a constitutional right, it's a privilege the state has thus far extended to the people, it had now decided to rescind it. It's not genocide.[/QUOTE] It's so easy for you to flatly dismiss the right to your own body as a 'privilege'. Have some empathy for half a second.
[QUOTE=CatFodder;51726773]It's so easy for you to flatly dismiss the right to your own body as a 'privilege'. Have some empathy for half a second.[/QUOTE] He's not going to have any empathy, and he's not going to listen to reason. Arguing with these people, while it's a nice gesture, is ultimately useless. They will not concede even when they're clearly in the wrong.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726743]Just because it exists doesn't mean it's a right and not one everyone agrees on. If you actually want to say 'trump is taking away rights' I'll take it seriously when it's second amendment, free speech and so on, not a hotly contested issue that is illegal and restricted in a lot of places that has never been described as a constitutional right. The government can lower your social security because you don't have a right to it.[/QUOTE] I did expect that it came down to you having an arbitrarily specific definition of what it takes to be considered a 'right'. Obviously abortion isn't a constitutional right, and nobody argued that it was. But being allowed to do something is the same as having the right to do something, it means the same. Abortion in some extent is a right women have, and that they should have, even if you don't consider it a right. [QUOTE=Cabbage;51726743]If you're insinuating that because it's being taken away, the people must have a right to it - you are simply delusional.[/QUOTE] If you take away someone's [I]right to do X[/I], then clearly logic says that [I]the right to do X[/I] must be there to take.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726753]Ok. I'm not discussing whether or not it should be legal or moral, my original point is don't pretend we're in a war against some tyrannical dictator when Trump pushes some legislation that takes one side of a particularly contested issue. It's not 'women's care' it's not a constitutional right, it's a privilege the state has thus far extended to the people, it had now decided to rescind it. It's not genocide.[/QUOTE] If you have no stake in whether or not it [I]should[/I] be legal/moral, why bother wasting everyone's times on the semantics of what is and is not a "right"? Either way, it is a practice that impacts women's health and which in my opinion (and the opinions of many Americans, [I]especially women[/I]) should be legal. Let's talk about that instead of listening to you babble about the constitution?
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726743]Just because it exists doesn't mean it's a right and not one everyone agrees on. If you actually want to say 'trump is taking away rights' I'll take it seriously when it's second amendment, free speech and so on, not a hotly contested issue that is illegal and restricted in a lot of places that has never been described as a constitutional right. The government can lower your social security because you don't have a right to it. If you're insinuating that because it's being taken away, the people must have a right to it - you are simply delusional.[/QUOTE] Wrong. Outlawing abortion is taking away women's rights - the right to do what they will with their own bodies. Until a fetus is 22-24 weeks old, as Zone said, it is not an individual. I think you're the only one here who is delusional.
[QUOTE=CatFodder;51726773]It's so easy for you to flatly dismiss the right to your own body as a 'privilege'. Have some empathy for half a second.[/QUOTE] right to your own body =/= right to kill something that is separate to your body [editline]25th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;51726781]If you have no stake in whether or not it [I]should[/I] be legal/moral, why bother wasting everyone's times on the semantics of what is and is not a "right"? Either way, it is a practice that impacts women's health and which in my opinion (and the opinions of many Americans, [I]especially women[/I]) should be legal. Let's talk about that instead of listening to you babble about the constitution?[/QUOTE] because that was the initial point, why waste your time replying if I am wasting your time when you read it? bye
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726790]right to your own body =/= right to kill something that is separate to your body[/QUOTE] Oh right, it's because this [I]is[/I] a moral argument for you, but it's easier to deflect with legalese than to address the fact that you have stone-age opinions regarding reproduction.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726790]right to your own body =/= right to kill something that is separate to your body [/QUOTE] If it can't survive outside your body then it is not separate to your body.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726790]right to your own body =/= right to kill something that is separate to your body [editline]25th January 2017[/editline] because that was the initial point, why waste your time replying if I am wasting your time when you read it? bye[/QUOTE] This "something", as you put it, separate from their bodies can be the cause of their own death if anything at all goes south.
If I had a brother that was dying and the only way that he could be saved was for me to give blood to him, I have every right to refuse. No court in the land would demand that I should save my brother's life because I have all the rights over my own body. It should be the exactly the same with abortion. Nobody has the right to tell a woman what they must carry a baby to term, it must be up to the woman.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51726790]right to your own body =/= right to kill something that is separate to your body[/QUOTE] It isn't separate to your body until the fetus starts showing brain stem activity at 24 weeks. Until that point, it's simply a growth of cells. You're not scientifically literate, I get that. But the fact that despite everyone here correcting you you're still so adamant that you're right makes it hilarious you were calling other people delusional.
Hey Cabbage, I need a kidney to live, I can just take one of yours by force right? You'll survive with one and you'll be killing me otherwise.
As per what someone said on the first page, he was elected through your legal system that has worked for a long time, if he got into power, it's 1. Your fault for not voting, since the turnout was half of what it was last election 2. Accept it, he won using the same system as the last god knows how many presidents. You need to fix the system first before complaining about him getting into power, that's the primary issue.
[QUOTE=TrannyAlert;51726827]As per what someone said on the first page, he was elected through your legal system that has worked for a long time, if he got into power, it's 1. Your fault for not voting, since the turnout was half of what it was last election 2. Accept it, he won using the same system as the last god knows how many presidents. You need to fix the system first before complaining about him getting into power, that's the primary issue.[/QUOTE] What is wrong with protesting about his policies, which is what the biggest protest so far, the Women's Protest, was about?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.