• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

pro abortion fanatics inspired by satan.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
justoh said:
Your conditional assumes his existence, hypothetically, but then takes for granted that one is incapable of resisting his influence. If you had explicitly added this as another premise then it would be valid, but you didn't. Now you're ignoring this and simply denying his existence altogether, which is just what he wants.

edit: unless by make you meant coercion and not "persuasion," but it's fundamental that it be resistable, otherwise what's the point? It might be valid what you said but it's not true (and quite silly/fatuous - unfair to be judged if coerced, no shit).
Click to expand...

Please explain for me an example of the devil persuading, coercing, influencing, or controlling me. Since I am not aware of the devil doing so, either he is not attempting to "corrupt" me (either by choice or because he does not exist) or I do not have the means to notice what he's doing on a conscious level.

How does a "loving god" properly judge people when he allows a creature to persuade, coerce, influence, or, to the extreme, control them without their knowledge?

Personally, I don't find any reason to believe in a god or devil, but obviously many do, hence why I'm making the argument.
 
child of wonder said:
Please explain for me an example of the devil persuading, coercing, influencing, or controlling me. Since I am not aware of the devil doing so, either he is not attempting to "corrupt" me (either by choice or because he does not exist) or I do not have the means to notice what he's doing on a conscious level.
Click to expand...
Pay attention to the background. If he needs a band to help it sound good, that was the devil. He probably knows better than to try to corrupt Charlie Daniels or Yo Yo Ma, these days 🙂hmm: there's always Lindsey Stirling ()🙂).
 
justoh said:
Amen. Hail Satan.
Click to expand...

HAIL STAN!!!

azuvy7ym.jpg
 
nehalem256 said:
Its also nothing more than excuse. If medical technology advanced, say the development of some kind of artificial womb, and therefore you could support a fetus at a very young phase of development(say a couple of weeks)...

Do you think pro-choicers would then support banning abortion entirely and forcing women to raise the children that were incubated in artificial wombs? After all this is exactly how liberals treat men.

I doubt it. The whole "Its a woman's body" is just a post-hoc excuse to allow women to do whatever they want with their life; a right liberals are perfectly happy to deny to men.
Click to expand...

I think pro-choicers would probably be ok if the baby was taken out of the body of the woman and given to pro-lifers to raise using their own funds. An abortion is an admission by the pregnant woman that she doesn't have the resources to raise a child.
 
JulesMaximus said:
Go ahead, ask me anything. 😛

I'm sick of the term pro-choice. Just man up and say that you're pro-abortion for fuck sake.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in abortion, but I don't believe it's anyone's right to tell someone they can't do it.

I personally feel many that think otherwise somehow think they were lucky they weren't aborted at birth.
 
bshole said:
I think pro-choicers would probably be ok if the baby was taken out of the body of the woman and given to pro-lifers to raise using their own funds. An abortion is an admission by the pregnant woman that she doesn't have the resources to raise a child.
Click to expand...

So you are agreeing with my point.

Pro-choicers support choice not because "its a woman's body", but because they want to let a woman control her own life.

A control it is important to mention they have no problem denying to men. He needs to "man up", because its his for for squirting in the woman.
 
justoh said:
Didn't see this posted yet. What does it say about the so-called "pro-choice" movement? Apparently some of them were quite vocal about their support for satan.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/pro-abortion-crowd-chants-hail-satan.html



He seems fair in granting that it's probably not the case that all proabortionists are satanists, but he also notes,



What do you guys think? Whether or not you think satan exists, the teachings attributable to him are pure evil.
Click to expand...

50% of all pregnancies abort without any human intervention, does this make GOD the total high score abortionist of all time and space?
 
nehalem256 said:
So you are agreeing with my point.

Pro-choicers support choice not because "its a woman's body", but because they want to let a woman control her own life.

A control it is important to mention they have no problem denying to men. He needs to "man up", because its his for for squirting in the woman.
Click to expand...

The law apples equally to you. But you already know that 😉
 
WHAMPOM said:
50% of all pregnancies abort without any human intervention, does this make GOD the total high score abortionist of all time and space?
Click to expand...

Yup, if you believe in God and a fertilized egg is a child then God is the biggest abortioner ever. So morally, the act of trying to have a child is basically the same as playing Russian Roulette with a child.

What's also funny is the standard response for people who believe this is that they have no responsibility over whether a spontaneous abortion happens, yet they claim out of the other side of their mouth that people have to take responsibility for having sex.

Maybe God forced them to have sex so he could abort their baby. :hmm:
 
Vic Vega said:
Didn't take long to bring the "bigot" defense out, eh? Also, I didn't mention legislation, did I?

If you want to call me a bigot, OK, and I will call you a caveman and a savage with a low IQ and no sense of humanity.

The fact that you use the term bigot makes me think you are a far left asshole, as this (along with racist) is their go-to word for describing people they disagree with.

Traditionally far left will oppose anything the far right supports, and vise versa.

Abortion (though opposed by the far right for religious weirdness) should be opposed and is not a left right issue, but stupid people like you, incapable of critical thinking or independent analysis make it one because you're so full of hate you must oppose anything the right stands for on principal and call them a bigot.

It's people like you along with religious wackos which makes we think we won't last another 500 years because you are still thinking in caveman mode. You're a savage, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your post with no content. It is a wedge political issue for Democrats and Republicans. I am an independent voter. I care about critical thinking and individual freedom. I am pro personal freedom. This means you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't burden others in the process.

You are resorting to a flurry of ad hominems (stupid, incapable of critical thinking, savage, lumped in with religious wackos, caveman, far left asshole, low IQ), that doesn't bode well for your argument.

I used the word bigot because I am familiar with the english language.

In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. who described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

You sir, are exactly following that description with your regression in meaningful dialogue.

Edit: accidentally a word.
 
Last edited:
Paratus said:
The law apples equally to you. But you already know that 😉
Click to expand...

By your logic one could just as easily say that a law requiring someone to carry a fetus gestating within them to term applies equally to both genders.

Of course as with current abortion laws it is only equal so long as you ignore reality.

Given that most of liberal ideology is fundamentally about rejecting reality that should come as no surprise.

And I wasn't talking about whether a law technically applies equally to both genders. I was talking about liberal lying through their teeth when they say abortion is about "a woman's body". And provided an example illustrating how absurd their view are, and that it is highly unlikely that liberals would continue pretending to hold their so call "a woman's body" views in said future.
 
Paratus said:
Yup, if you believe in God and a fertilized egg is a child then God is the biggest abortioner ever. So morally, the act of trying to have a child is basically the same as playing Russian Roulette with a child.

What's also funny is the standard response for people who believe this is that they have no responsibility over whether a spontaneous abortion happens, yet they claim out of the other side of their mouth that people have to take responsibility for having sex.

Maybe God forced them to have sex so he could abort their baby. :hmm:
Click to expand...

Just as liberals do... well so long as you replace people with men.
 
As a pro-baby-killer i can't wait until all of your wives are forcefully aborted, and i am able to eat their unborn fetuses. This is what satan wants me to do.
 
alkemyst said:
I don't believe in abortion, but I don't believe it's anyone's right to tell someone they can't do it.

I personally feel many that think otherwise somehow think they were lucky they weren't aborted at birth.
Click to expand...

I don't really either but if someone is going to push the issue I don't have a problem stating that I'm pro-abortion... it's just fucking words. Not really sure why it matters what I think anyway. I've never caused an unwanted pregnancy nor an abortion. I am married and I have a son but despite that I am still pro-choice.

I'm not pro-satan either... that's where I draw the line. 😀

This thread is ridiculous.
 
nehalem256 said:
By your logic one could just as easily say that a law requiring someone to carry a fetus gestating within them to term applies equally to both genders.

Of course as with current abortion laws it is only equal so long as you ignore reality.

Given that most of liberal ideology is fundamentally about rejecting reality that should come as no surprise.

And I wasn't talking about whether a law technically applies equally to both genders. I was talking about liberal lying through their teeth when they say abortion is about "a woman's body". And provided an example illustrating how absurd their view are, and that it is highly unlikely that liberals would continue pretending to hold their so call "a woman's body" views in said future.
Click to expand...

Women get to control their life. Men get to control their life. Both must provide for a child they have. Pretty straightforward and fair.

Plus anyone who carries a baby may abort upto ~24 weeks. Applies evenly.

And taking responsibility for sex means protecting against STDs and pregnancy and deciding if you can support a child. Of the answer is no be safe. If theirs an accident decide early whether to abort, carry or give away for adoption. That's responsibility and facing consequences.

I also find it amusing you said in another thread that you like it when people get what's coming to them. Because I think it is painfully obvious to everyone on this board you apparently got what was coming to you.

😉
 
Last edited:
Paratus said:
Women get to control their life. Men get to control their life. Both must provide for a child they have. Pretty straightforward and fair.
Click to expand...

Actually this has been repeatedly shown to be false due to safe haven laws. Apparently expecting men to raise a kid they don't want for 18 years is reasonable, but expecting a woman not to murder her infant is not.

And its only straightforward and fair if you assigning equal culpability for rubbing your dick around for 15 min as choosing to carry a fetus for 9 months. Which is pretty asinine.

Equal responsibility for vastly unequal actions is in no way far.

Imagine a woman buys her boyfriend a gun for his birthday. Then 9 months later he murders someone with it. Based on your logic it would be "straightforward and fair" to hold the woman equally responsible for the murder.

Paratus said:
Plus anyone who carries a baby may abort upto ~24 weeks. Applies evenly.
Click to expand...

As I said this is absolutely no different than:

"Anyone who carries a baby must carry it to term. Applies evenly". :hmm:

Somehow I think liberals would be screaming about a "war on women" and "misogyny"
 
WHAMPOM said:
50% of all pregnancies abort without any human intervention, does this make GOD the total high score abortionist of all time and space?
Click to expand...

Similar to reading through the Bible, where at the end you realize that God is really the villain:
god-v-satan.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top