The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on February 04, 2012, 10:28:56 PM
-
global1
If Repugs Were Pro-Choice What Term Or Terms Would They Use For The Word Abortion?.....
I don't know what made me think of this today. Probably listening to all the talk about Komen and Planned Parenthood. I then thought that Repugs make up nice words or phrases for certain programs, bills they want passed, etc. that either put a negative connotation on it/them or a positive spin. Like the Affordable Care Act - they call Obamacare - a negative spin. Or for Social Security and Medicare - they call entitlements.
I don't know if this is a Repug made up name but - Clean Coal - puts a positive spin on what we're used to - dirty, air polluting coal.
I then thought - if Repugs were pro-abortion/pro-choice - what positive spin would they put on the word abortion and what would they call it.
It was pointed out to me when I discussed this with a friend that Pro-choice is the positive spun abortion. I can accept that - but was wondering if the Repugs would even come up with something different.
What would it be?
I know people here on DU are creative - I am throwing it out for all you creative DU'ers. If the Repugs were pro-choice or for abortion - what would they call it?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002268730
Well you pro abortion sickos, use terms as choice and birth control.
You call the unborn, fetuses, zygotes, clump of cells, anything but a baby.
unkachuck
5. the removal of a parasitic growth....n/t
I have heard liberals use that.
-
It's all about spin with them, the primitives.
In a nutshell "how do we frame the debate, control the terminology, coin the words to enable us to conceal our true intentions and get away with it all".
Anything but the truth.
-
Response to global1 (Original post)Sat Feb 4, 2012, 11:20 PM
Warpy
7. "Decreasing poverty"
You know they'd do it, too.
Racist dog whistle projection.
-
Well, since conservatives such as myself value life, even the lives of tbe DUmmies, you're pissing in the wind. We will never be in favor of the taking of innocent human life in the name of choice, convenience, or however you want to justify wholesale murder which is now at nearly ten times the number Hitler murdrred in the camps.
Yeah ****ers, I went there. Come here and tell me I'm wrong.
-
Liberals simply call it a "woman's reproductive right" and think they are being clever.
-
I don't have much to add to this other than... WHAT A ****ING IDIOT.
We call them entitlements because there is a portion of the population that thinks they are entitled to them.
And your party basically did exactly what you are claiming we do by calling it the Affordable Care Act... what a load of bullshit. Wow that sounds sooooo goooood Affordable Care Act...... It's gonna be so affordable for the ****ers who don't have to pay for it. **** the taxpayers who will end up footing the bill. UnAffordable Care Act would be more appropriate you scum sucking DUmmie.
No to mention the irony that exists in the whole point of your idiotic post. YOU ARE THE ****ING MURDERERS WHO PUT A POSITIVE SPIN ON ABORTION (MURDER). :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
-
It's all about spin with them, the primitives.
In a nutshell "how do we frame the debate, control the terminology, coin the words to enable us to conceal our true intentions and get away with it all".
Anything but the truth.
Yeah it's funny how they constantly have to reframe the debate, and dream up new terms to try to win. When you have truth on your side the facts speak for themselves and you don't have to reframe the debate and dream up new terms.
-
Yeah it's funny how they constantly have to reframe the debate, and dream up new terms to try to win. When you have truth on your side the facts speak for themselves and you don't have to reframe the debate and dream up new terms.
Where in the Bible is it said that the children should not be responsible for the sins [actions ] of their fathers???
-
Where in the Bible is it said that the children should not be responsible for the sins [actions ] of their fathers???
I don't think it does. God says the sins of the fathers carry down on the children for 3 or 4 generations. However, in watching how humans actually function, I believe what the verse refers to is the fact that abusive parents usually raise children that will abuse, alcoholics raise alcoholics, overeaters..., lazy..., undereducated..., etc. The children usually turn out a lot like the parents. (Not always, but often.)
However, if God chooses to judge a people and include judgement on the children, He is the only One with that right...and He has that right because He knows those children and what futures they would have. Humans never have that right. We can't see into the future. We often can't even see into the past with any clarity. And we certainly don't understand anyone with the depth of God's understanding...not even ourselves.
-
Where in the Bible is it said that the children should not be responsible for the sins [actions ] of their fathers???
What does that have to do with what I said?
-
If Repugs were Pro-abortion, we would be pro-aborting those that have proven to be worth more dead than alive. No wonder the DUmmies don't want to think about that. :rotf: Thank God conservatives recognize that all human life is sanctified, and that we don't segment certain parts of the human population that can be labeled "not human enough" in order to make murder OK. Only those that have taken human life can be put to death because they made the choice to forfeit their own lives by taking another.
-
What does that have to do with what I said?
Abortion in cases of rape and incest is literally punishing the child for the sin of the father.
-
Abortion in cases of rape and incest is literally punishing the child for the sin of the father.
I realize that, but I'm confused as to why she brought that up with me, since I was not discussing that. The discussion was about all the cutsie terms that the left has to use to justify abortion.
-
I realize that, but I'm confused as to why she brought that up with me, since I was not discussing that. The discussion was about all the cutsie terms that the left has to use to justify abortion.
She's vesta. :shrug: Sorry about butting in, maybe she'll still explain.
-
She's vesta. :shrug: Sorry about butting in, maybe she'll still explain.
You're fine, I'm not offended or anything was just explaining.
-
If DUmpmonkeys took a bath, what would they call it?
If DUmpmonkeys worked hard, abstained from drugs and were Christian, what would they call it?
-
If DUmpmonkeys took a bath, what would they call it?Delousing
If DUmpmonkeys worked hard, abstained from drugs and were Christian, what would they call it?Treasonous
Questions?
-
You're fine, I'm not offended or anything was just explaining.
That's what you get for not having vestanumbers on ignore.
It makes the forum a lot more enjoyable.
-
Where in the Bible is it said that the children should not be responsible for the sins [actions ] of their fathers???
The story of Jesus healing the blind man in John 9:1-4 states this (IMHO).
1 Now as Jesus was passing by, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man2 or his parents?â€3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man1 nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him.
-
The story of Jesus healing the blind man in John 9:1-4 states this (IMHO).
1 Now as Jesus was passing by, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man2 or his parents?â€3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man1 nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him.
I await Vestanumbers reply.
-
The story of Jesus healing the blind man in John 9:1-4 states this (IMHO).
1 Now as Jesus was passing by, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man2 or his parents?â€3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man1 nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him.
That is an excellent example, however I find this one to be more clear on this particular topic:
Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
----------
I think some people get confused when they run into verses in the Bible speaking of God visiting sins of the fathers unto the 3rd or 4th genertion thinking that means the sins of the father are transfered to the children, which is not the case. The sin was that of the father and his alone, but it might just be that the children end up have to suffer the consequences of that sin, also. Good example would be when the Nation of Judah was taken into Babylonian captivity. Were the children who were born under Babylonian captivity accountable for the sins their fathers committed which caused the people to be carried away in bondage? No, they weren't. But they still had to suffer the consequences of what went before by living in bondage to the Babylonians.
.
-
Liberals simply call it a "woman's reproductive right" and think they are being clever.
When you allow someone to believe that their personal rights trump another person's right to life, you invite genocide.
-
Pre-birth murder.
But seriously, DUmmies, I'd really like to have an answer to something. You don't even have to come over here and answer since I know you don't have the guts. And in spite of all your digs at us you obviously spend an inordinate amount of time over here finding out what we're saying about you. Your egos won't allow you to do otherwise.
Now, I'm guessing you guys would argue, being the "reality based" community, you want every woman to be able to make an informed choice. With an abortion,according to you, we're simply dealing with a mass of tissue, a fetus, zygote, nonhuman, less than an endangered sucker fish that has to be saved from evil farmers who want to water their crops. So why not have those women seeking to have said growth removed have an ultrasound so they can actually see the foreign mass invading their bodies?
We break an arm, our doctor shows us the x-rays, we view results from blood tests (my provider even sends them to me in the mail), etc. So why not this? What possible objection can you have with a woman making an informed choice about her reproductive rights? Explain it, I dare you! Betcha can't!
Cindie
-
Liberals simply call it a "woman's reproductive right" and think they are being clever.
They can call it a bananna if they want, but it is still murder.