You know what the difference between this discussion and Roe v. Wade is? People who support legal abortion can provide reasonable arguments why the death of the unborn either doesn’t count or is outweighed by the value of bodily integrity. And if you disagree with those arguments, then yeah, you’ll probably see that as evil. But at least they exist, right? I don’t think those arguments exist for CHIP. I have yet to see any principled argument against CHIP that doesn’t fall under the category “argument against literally all welfare” á la what Humpy has to offer, i.e. fucking stupid.
Honest question. Do you really think this is going to convince anyone? Most people here, just like most state, federal, and supreme court justices, disagree with your interpretation. This isn’t an argument in favor of your interpretation, and it’s not even trying to convince anyone. What, exactly, is the purpose of this? I mean, honestly, what are you trying to accomplish here other than pissing everyone off?
He’s trying to Make America Great Again. How re-introducing smallpox and polio into the population and reinstating Jim Crow laws will accomplish this remains a mystery.
Bricker’s entire entrance into the thread was because liberals were being mean to Republicans by saying they don’t care about children, and has consisted of smug arrogance and not truly taking a side on the CHIP program, only whining about the meanness of the liberals trying to sort out his position while being a condescending ass. He’s perfectly willing to ignore the separation of church and state when it comes to his pet issue (abortion), but happily ignores all the things Jesus Christ actually said.
This reminds me of the scene when Steve Martin played a new rich person (I think it was “The jerk”) and one guy representing a charity that worked to prevent abuse or hunger of children was requesting money from the new rich guy. He was adamant that he would not contribute, no, not ever, but then the representative showed him the photos and evidence of the effects of hunger or abuse and the Jerk suddenly and loudly began to sign the check to give for the cause.
Well, in this case one has to remember again that most Republican will do that jerk act and still eventually do the right thing. Bricker is a case where he will not only be a Jerk like the Trumpist Republicans, but to also ignore what most Republicans still do eventually the right thing regarding CHIP. Or least did until Trump and the neo Jerks began to take over the Republican party.
You only showed all that it is you the one that can’t read here, as the poster you replied here was talking to Clothahump, I have to point again that everyone should check the link I made for all in post #174
You are indeed showing all that you do want to help bigoted flea infested dogs that do want to share those fleas with willful ignorants like you.
I for one applaud Bricker’s awakening. By recognizing that the poor should not have more children than they can afford, he makes a clear and compelling argument against restrictions on abortion. From now on I shall gladly and honorably refer to him as “Pro Choice Bricker”, and I encourage others to do so as well.
In the past when I’ve called Bricker and Clothahump intellectual soulmates I was being sarcastic. But, as in the old Twilight Zone episode where thoughts becoming curses, the Brickahump whinings have indeed merged into a single voice. Oh, their dictions are so different I’m certain I could figure out which wrote which gibberish, but like an Abbot-Costello team they worked their patter together, supplying punchlines.
I didn’t expect Clothahump to give an answer to this, but his soulmate showed us the way: Abortion: Killary and the Democrats have killed more babies than Stalin, Pol Pot, FDR and Alger Hiss combined.
(Amusingly, Bricker pontificates like a constipated Puritan on any 5-4 SCOTUS decision he approves of, but acts as though he were unaware of the 7-2 Roe v. Wade decision. Five of the 7 were GOP appointees BTW, and one of the dissenters was a JFK appointee. Perhaps the key difference, in the Clotharicker view, is in the identity of the token nigger: SCOTUS decisions don’t count, I guess, until the ignorant ape-man Thurgood Marshall was replaced with top constitutional scholar Clarence Thomas.)
And Brickahump has silently confirmed that the “kajillion projects more worthy” than saving the lives of unaborted children are TaxCutsForTheRich. I guess he/it joins with other Republican thinkers in viewing the war against the rich as the biggest problem of our lifetimes. It must be frustrating to be a billionaire in today’s America, with the feds sending in SWAT teams to steal every dime that’s not nailed down. Many of our billionaires have given up and are now begging for pennies in the streets of Albania. Sad.
This is genuinely fascinating. If you are possessed by some religious or ideological delusion that prevents you from seeing the difference between a blastocyst and a human child, then you suffer from a major cognitive impairment that puts you beyond the reach of reason, as indeed you do, and as indeed you are.
And if it’s your position that your bizarre delusions must be imposed on actual living human beings to deprive them of their basic human rights by force of law, then your cognitive impairment is dangerous. And if you further believe that society must protect the zygote and the blastocyst at all costs but has no obligation to protect actual suffering children, then you are also a pitiless unfeeling hypocrite.
The only mystery to me is why you hang around here flaunting those attributes as if you were proud of them.
Bricker is so unfeeling about real human beings, it’s my guess he doesn’t care about blastocysts either. But his mentors — Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, etc. — all must appeal to the GOP base by pretending to hate Women’s Choice so, like a hypnotised sheep, Bricker thinks he must hate Womens’ Choice also.
How many dead unborn children do you treat like dead children? The rhetoric about ‘killing unborn children’ is a standard line from anti-abortion advocates but I’ve never seen any that actually treat it that way. If someone were to slit their kid’s throats, or sit around saying they fully support kid-throat slitting I rather doubt you’d allow them to come anywhere near you in any situation where you can control who’s near you (like inviting people to your house). But I don’t get the impression that you react to unborn-kid-killers the same way, even though your argument is that they’re doing the same thing - or do you reject unborn-kid-killer-advocates from your presence the same way you do born-kid-killer-advocates? If you were in a fire and could either save a 2-year old child or a large container holding 500 fertilized eggs, which would you take out? If your answer is the child, then you’re clearly not treating the 500 eggs as ‘unborn children’.
It’s pretty obvious that the real motive of forbidding abortion is to punish women for daring to have sex, but using babies to punish sexual behavior is so disgusting that almost no one wants to admit it. I know you (Bricker) will dodge around the questions above, because I’ve seen it before, but that doesn’t change the facts. Anyone listening to anti-abortion protesters and their use of words like ‘whore’ and ‘slut’ instead of ‘murder’ can tell that opposition to abortion really has nothing to do with alleged baby killing.
Because it’s the one that people actually act like they believe, and that doesn’t include the absolutely horrible insistence that a woman should be forced to act as an incubator for her rapist’s baby (or that baby’s with a rapist father can be murdered).
I don’t think that’s quite fair to him. I think he honestly believes that at the moment of conception, the zygote is a human being with a soul and entitled to protection under the law. I disagree with it most vehemently, but I don’t doubt his sincerity. Now you can say that if one cares so much about the unborn, then one should care equally about the already born and I think it is indeed hypocritical to be “pro-life” and against giving health care to kids whatever it takes, Constitution be damned.
Being anti-abortion doesn’t mean you are in favor of giving “health care” to fetuses. Saying you don’t favor killing something (or someone) is not the same as saying you favor providing any kind of services to that thing (or person). In short, there is no hypocrisy.
It’s hard to imagine that you would tell parents of kids who need CHIP *right now * that they should think about long-term outcomes instead of their immediate situation.