oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

What we are really talking about is whether evangelicals can force everyone else to comply with the demands of their chosen religion. That's no different from Sharia except we aren't supposed to live in a theocracy.

---

Wrong. Many people simply have a sense that the fetus is a human life, or future human life, and that this is a choice to commit murder. That has nothing to do with religion.

For many it is a human reaction to hearing the first heart beat, knowing the fetus can feel pain, etc. You obviously feel differently and that's your right but the inability to see this as anything than a movement to create a theocracy is actually quite sad.

---

Why does the fetus have more rights than the woman? Your rights end where mine begin. That is true for women too.

---

In 99% of pregnancies, the woman made a conscious choice that lead to a reasonable likelihood they'd create a fetus. The fetus made no such choice.

---

Doesn't matter. The woman did nothing illegal and your rights still end where hers begin.

Religion or not, what you are doing is imposing your morals on women. If your morals tell you not to have an abortion then don't have one. But my daughter is free from your moral judgments.

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

What we are really talking about is whether evangelicals can force everyone else to comply with the demands of their chosen religion. That's no different from Sharia except we aren't supposed to live in a theocracy.

---

Wrong. Many people simply have a sense that the fetus is a human life, or future human life, and that this is a choice to commit murder. That has nothing to do with religion.

For many it is a human reaction to hearing the first heart beat, knowing the fetus can feel pain, etc. You obviously feel differently and that's your right but the inability to see this as anything than a movement to create a theocracy is actually quite sad.

---

Why does the fetus have more rights than the woman? Your rights end where mine begin. That is true for women too.

---

In 99% of pregnancies, the woman made a conscious choice that lead to a reasonable likelihood they'd create a fetus. The fetus made no such choice.

---

Doesn't matter. The woman did nothing illegal and your rights still end where hers begin.

Religion or not, what you are doing is imposing your morals on women. If your morals tell you not to have an abortion then don't have one. But my daughter is free from your moral judgments.

---

Nobody has a right to kill somebody because they don't want to have a baby. The right to live is stronger than the right to not have a baby, especially when you made a conscious choice that would reasonably result in you having a baby.

AunBear89 said:

---

Making up numbers - particularly absurd numbers at that - proves you are a solid member of the third branch of the conservative movement.


Hyperbole might have been an effective debate tactic for you on the elementary school playground, but grownups are talking now.

---

You are correct 35% percent of the time. The rest of the time you are a whiny snooty hypocrite. Or it is 26% of the time? Would it be safe to say you argue with personal attacks 99% of the time instead of having reasonable debates on a topic?

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

What we are really talking about is whether evangelicals can force everyone else to comply with the demands of their chosen religion. That's no different from Sharia except we aren't supposed to live in a theocracy.

---

Wrong. Many people simply have a sense that the fetus is a human life, or future human life, and that this is a choice to commit murder. That has nothing to do with religion.

For many it is a human reaction to hearing the first heart beat, knowing the fetus can feel pain, etc. You obviously feel differently and that's your right but the inability to see this as anything than a movement to create a theocracy is actually quite sad.

---

Why does the fetus have more rights than the woman? Your rights end where mine begin. That is true for women too.

---

In 99% of pregnancies, the woman made a conscious choice that lead to a reasonable likelihood they'd create a fetus. The fetus made no such choice.

---

Doesn't matter. The woman did nothing illegal and your rights still end where hers begin.

Religion or not, what you are doing is imposing your morals on women. If your morals tell you not to have an abortion then don't have one. But my daughter is free from your moral judgments.

---

Nobody has a right to kill somebody because they don't want to have a baby. The right to live is stronger than the right to not have a baby, especially when you made a conscious choice that would reasonably result in you having a baby.

---

The fetus has every right to live independently just as the woman has every right to live independently. Her body. Her choice. The rights of the fetus end where her rights begin. Your moral judgments have no say in the matter.

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

What we are really talking about is whether evangelicals can force everyone else to comply with the demands of their chosen religion. That's no different from Sharia except we aren't supposed to live in a theocracy.

---

Wrong. Many people simply have a sense that the fetus is a human life, or future human life, and that this is a choice to commit murder. That has nothing to do with religion.

For many it is a human reaction to hearing the first heart beat, knowing the fetus can feel pain, etc. You obviously feel differently and that's your right but the inability to see this as anything than a movement to create a theocracy is actually quite sad.

---

Why does the fetus have more rights than the woman? Your rights end where mine begin. That is true for women too.

---

In 99% of pregnancies, the woman made a conscious choice that lead to a reasonable likelihood they'd create a fetus. The fetus made no such choice.

---

Doesn't matter. The woman did nothing illegal and your rights still end where hers begin.

Religion or not, what you are doing is imposing your morals on women. If your morals tell you not to have an abortion then don't have one. But my daughter is free from your moral judgments.

---

Nobody has a right to kill somebody because they don't want to have a baby. The right to live is stronger than the right to not have a baby, especially when you made a conscious choice that would reasonably result in you having a baby.

---

The fetus has every right to live independently just as the woman has every right to live independently. Her body. Her choice. The rights of the fetus end where her rights begin. Your moral judgments have no say in the matter.

---

You kill a fetus when you cut it up or poison it during an abortion. It doesn't live independently after an abortion.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

What we are really talking about is whether evangelicals can force everyone else to comply with the demands of their chosen religion. That's no different from Sharia except we aren't supposed to live in a theocracy.

---

Wrong. Many people simply have a sense that the fetus is a human life, or future human life, and that this is a choice to commit murder. That has nothing to do with religion.

For many it is a human reaction to hearing the first heart beat, knowing the fetus can feel pain, etc. You obviously feel differently and that's your right but the inability to see this as anything than a movement to create a theocracy is actually quite sad.

---

Why does the fetus have more rights than the woman? Your rights end where mine begin. That is true for women too.

---

In 99% of pregnancies, the woman made a conscious choice that lead to a reasonable likelihood they'd create a fetus. The fetus made no such choice.

---

Doesn't matter. The woman did nothing illegal and your rights still end where hers begin.

Religion or not, what you are doing is imposing your morals on women. If your morals tell you not to have an abortion then don't have one. But my daughter is free from your moral judgments.

---

Nobody has a right to kill somebody because they don't want to have a baby. The right to live is stronger than the right to not have a baby, especially when you made a conscious choice that would reasonably result in you having a baby.

---

The fetus has every right to live independently just as the woman has every right to live independently. Her body. Her choice. The rights of the fetus end where her rights begin. Your moral judgments have no say in the matter.

---

You kill a fetus when you cut it up or poison it during an abortion. It doesn't live independently after an abortion.

---

Not the woman's problem. The rights of the fetus end where the rights of the woman to have full autonomy over her body begin. Her body. Her choice. Your moral judgments are irrelevant here.

Bud Light 2.0.

Trans Owner of Miss Universe Pageant Files for Bankruptcy Following Major Woke Inclusivity Push https://t.co/b2QPdLFid4 #gatewaypundit via @gatewaypundit

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) November 11, 2023

Imagine how bad of a businessman Trump is that he drove a number of companies into bankruptcy without even being woke

A solid quote from the GOP Runner up Debate #3:

VIVEK RAMASWAMY: …" But I want to be careful to avoid making the mistakes from the neocon establishment of the past. Corrupt politicians in both parties spent trillions, killed millions, made billions for themselves in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting wars that sent thousands of our sons and daughters, people my age to die in wars that did not advance anyone's interests, adding $7 trillion to our national debt.

"And Joe Biden sold off our foreign policy. Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden got a $5 million bribe from Ukraine. That's why we're sending $200 billion back to that same country. The fact of the matter is the Republican Party is not that much better."

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

What we are really talking about is whether evangelicals can force everyone else to comply with the demands of their chosen religion. That's no different from Sharia except we aren't supposed to live in a theocracy.

---

Wrong. Many people simply have a sense that the fetus is a human life, or future human life, and that this is a choice to commit murder. That has nothing to do with religion.

For many it is a human reaction to hearing the first heart beat, knowing the fetus can feel pain, etc. You obviously feel differently and that's your right but the inability to see this as anything than a movement to create a theocracy is actually quite sad.

---

Why does the fetus have more rights than the woman? Your rights end where mine begin. That is true for women too.

---

In 99% of pregnancies, the woman made a conscious choice that lead to a reasonable likelihood they'd create a fetus. The fetus made no such choice.

---

Doesn't matter. The woman did nothing illegal and your rights still end where hers begin.

Religion or not, what you are doing is imposing your morals on women. If your morals tell you not to have an abortion then don't have one. But my daughter is free from your moral judgments.

---

Nobody has a right to kill somebody because they don't want to have a baby. The right to live is stronger than the right to not have a baby, especially when you made a conscious choice that would reasonably result in you having a baby.

---

The fetus has every right to live independently just as the woman has every right to live independently. Her body. Her choice. The rights of the fetus end where her rights begin. Your moral judgments have no say in the matter.

---

You kill a fetus when you cut it up or poison it during an abortion. It doesn't live independently after an abortion.

---

Not the woman's problem. The rights of the fetus end where the rights of the woman to have full autonomy over her body begin. Her body. Her choice. Your moral judgments are irrelevant here.

---

That's your way of saying babies have no rights when inside a woman's body. The law does not agree with you, and I certainly disagree.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

What we are really talking about is whether evangelicals can force everyone else to comply with the demands of their chosen religion. That's no different from Sharia except we aren't supposed to live in a theocracy.

---

Wrong. Many people simply have a sense that the fetus is a human life, or future human life, and that this is a choice to commit murder. That has nothing to do with religion.

For many it is a human reaction to hearing the first heart beat, knowing the fetus can feel pain, etc. You obviously feel differently and that's your right but the inability to see this as anything than a movement to create a theocracy is actually quite sad.

---

Why does the fetus have more rights than the woman? Your rights end where mine begin. That is true for women too.

---

In 99% of pregnancies, the woman made a conscious choice that lead to a reasonable likelihood they'd create a fetus. The fetus made no such choice.

---

Doesn't matter. The woman did nothing illegal and your rights still end where hers begin.

Religion or not, what you are doing is imposing your morals on women. If your morals tell you not to have an abortion then don't have one. But my daughter is free from your moral judgments.

---

Nobody has a right to kill somebody because they don't want to have a baby. The right to live is stronger than the right to not have a baby, especially when you made a conscious choice that would reasonably result in you having a baby.

---

The fetus has every right to live independently just as the woman has every right to live independently. Her body. Her choice. The rights of the fetus end where her rights begin. Your moral judgments have no say in the matter.

---

You kill a fetus when you cut it up or poison it during an abortion. It doesn't live independently after an abortion.

---

Not the woman's problem. The rights of the fetus end where the rights of the woman to have full autonomy over her body begin. Her body. Her choice. Your moral judgments are irrelevant here.

---

That's your way of saying babies have no rights when inside a woman's body. The law does not agree with you, and I certainly disagree.

---

You are trying to conflate what the law says about a woman who has made a choice of having a baby and the responsibility that comes with that versus the choice of separation. A woman has the right to choose.

Welcome to Obamas 3rd term.

SFCityBear said:

---

Republicans are principled...

---

So you think that being pro woman's health and right to choose is not a principle? What an ego centric and uninformed point of view. If the majority of people disagree with you, just say they don't have a principle?

The abortion restriction position is manufactured. It's not actually a moral or religious position. It is not Biblical. It is an invented wedge issue. It is not pro life. The mother is alive, the collection of cells is not a baby. It is not logically consistent. If you assign personhood to a fetus to POTENTIAL life, then all sorts of things have to follow:

Abortion should be prosecuted as murder, with mother, father, doctor, and nurses all accessory to murder?

Is masturbation or any birth control also murder of potential life?

What special right are you granting to a fetus that it has access to another body? Can I take your blood or kidney without your consent?

The state should have numerous commitments to the baby and care of the baby if they are forcing birth.

The personhood of a fetus has legal implications.

The so called pro-life position is programmed emotional illogical and not at all what it claims to be. It is a control of female sexuality and a way to try and use pretend religiosity (by voters and politicians) for the purposes of political power. This position on abortion is not historical, it is a hysteric creation in the 60-70s. Completely made up to try and access southern churches and establish a sheepish "moral majority" for GOP gains. Not a sincere belief by the people who sold it to you and others.

The American people DO NOT WANT to lose a Constitutional right for the first time ever and to have the government do their family planning and make the biggest decision in the lives of actual living humans who "we" trust to decide what is best for themselves and in turn making society better.

The country doesn't agree with you. Get over it. Our principles are real, better, moral, empathetic, and much more pro life than yours.

So when a woman is pregnant, and she and her child are killed, why is it often charged as two murders? This is the case in 30+ states, typically if the baby is viable.

"In California, the killing of an unborn child (fetus) is murder and is covered under Penal Code Section 187."

https://abc17news.com/news/crime/2023/08/01/man-charged-with-two-counts-of-murder-after-pregnant-boone-county-womans-death/

movielover said:

---

So when a woman is pregnant, and she and her child are killed, why is it often charged as two murders? This is the case in 30+ states, typically if the baby is viable.

"In California, the killing of an unborn child (fetus) is murder and is covered under Penal Code Section 187."

https://abc17news.com/news/crime/2023/08/01/man-charged-with-two-counts-of-murder-after-pregnant-boone-county-womans-death/

---

Because it's the woman's choice. Her body. Her choice.

I love it when governments tell on themselves by proving they could have solved major problems affecting their tax paying citizens this entire time, they just didnt care.

Impressing a foreign country that hates America mattered more to the state than literal American citizens. https://t.co/kgG2Yf85Yz

— Count Dankula (@CountDankulaTV) November 12, 2023

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I love it when governments tell on themselves by proving they could have solved major problems affecting their tax paying citizens this entire time, they just didnt care.

Impressing a foreign country that hates America mattered more to the state than literal American citizens. https://t.co/kgG2Yf85Yz

— Count Dankula (@CountDankulaTV) November 12, 2023

---

So much absolute ridiculousness. Will the citizens wake up and vote accordingly?

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I love it when governments tell on themselves by proving they could have solved major problems affecting their tax paying citizens this entire time, they just didnt care.

Impressing a foreign country that hates America mattered more to the state than literal American citizens. https://t.co/kgG2Yf85Yz

— Count Dankula (@CountDankulaTV) November 12, 2023

---

Newsom Assures Homeless They Can Resume Pooping On Sidewalks Once His Boss Leaves https://t.co/H6P0l3qImK pic.twitter.com/M7Tg7n0tWs

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) November 13, 2023

Newsom admits he only cleaned up San Francisco because Xi came to visit. “That’s true. Because it’s true.” pic.twitter.com/vKgz1BQl4A

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 13, 2023

dajo9 said:

---

There is a solution for homeless people. Build public housing like we did in the 20th century. It's not like so many of our problems are new, it's that we have gotten dumb.

---

San Francisco Dishes Out Millions More to Damaged Shelter-in-Place Hotels


https://sfstandard.com/2023/04/04/san-francisco-dishes-out-millions-more-to-damaged-shelter-in-place-hotels/

*That article indicates to me that until the substance abuse and undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues of the homeless population are addressed, affordable housing won't change things.

IMHO homeless advocates are lying when they downplay the percentage of the homeless population that have substance abuse and mental health issues. I also don't believe the advocates when they claim these issues arise as a reaction to homelessness and are not a contributing factor to it.

Advocates say treating the homeless population for their substance abuse and mental health issues violates their rights if they don't want treatment. Where does that leave things but on a continuous loop and lifetime employment for homeless advocates (who have a conflict of interest, BTW).

bearister said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

There is a solution for homeless people. Build public housing like we did in the 20th century. It's not like so many of our problems are new, it's that we have gotten dumb.

---

San Francisco Dishes Out Millions More to Damaged Shelter-in-Place Hotels


https://sfstandard.com/2023/04/04/san-francisco-dishes-out-millions-more-to-damaged-shelter-in-place-hotels/

*That article indicates to me that until the substance abuse and undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues of the homeless population are addressed, affordable housing won't change things.

IMHO homeless advocates are lying when they downplay the percentage of the homeless population that have substance abuse and mental health issues. I also don't believe the advocates when they claim these issues arise as a reaction to homelessness and are not a contributing factor to it.

Advocates say treating the homeless population for their substance abuse and mental health issues violates their rights if they don't want treatment. Where does that leave things but on a continuous loop and lifetime employment for homeless advocates (who have a conflict of interest, BTW).

---

I agree with you. But, in general, there are 3 kinds of homeless. Economically disadvantaged, drug addicted, and mentally ill. The 3 groups belong in different places with different solutions. Public housing would be for the economically disadvantaged.

Groups like the Treatment Advocacy Center try to push legislation for court ordered treatment of the mentally ill. I am a donor to the Treatment Advocacy Center and support their work.

Hawaiian green sea turtles are taking over Kauai's Poipu Beach


https://www.sfgate.com/hawaii/article/hawaiian-sea-turtles-taking-over-poipu-beach-18475801.php