MTG Calls for Red State Secession

#477
#477
ClearwaterVol said:
There is no obligation. Unless you want to compare the obligation to take a drug to induce labor with the obligation to travel to the fire station.
Click to expand...

There is an obligation to not simply allow the child to die and to rather take them to the FD/EMS/Etc.

So the obvious question is, why do you only see that as applying in one scenario but not the other? Why is it okay to let one die, but not okay to allow the other to die?

You continue dodging that question.
 
#480
#480
Vol8188 said:
There is an obligation to not simply allow the child to die and to rather take them to the FD/EMS/Etc.

So the obvious question is, why do you only see that as applying in one scenario but not the other? Why is it okay to let one die, but not okay to allow the other to die?

You continue dodging that question.
Click to expand...

It is simply the decision not to allow another to infringe on one's personal rights. What happens after is unknown.
 
#481
#481
ClearwaterVol said:
It is simply the decision not to allow another to infringe on one's personal rights. What happens after is unknown.
Click to expand...

You're still ignoring the question. Why do I have to take the kid to the FD? Why cannot I not just leave them to die?

Rather, you believe I should be forced to take this child to the FD. That infringes upon my my personal rights.

Why is that infringement only acceptable in 1 of the 2 scenarios to you?

You continue to dodge this question.
 
Last edited:
#482
#482
Vol8188 said:
There is an obligation to not simply allow the child to die and to rather take them to the FD/EMS/Etc.

So the obvious question is, why do you only see that as applying in one scenario but not the other? Why is it okay to let one die, but not okay to allow the other to die?

You continue dodging that question.
Click to expand...
The left celebrates abortions. You see these women loving and bragging about having multiple abortions and the rest of the left cheers and calls them heroes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#483
#483
hog88 said:
Define patriotic?
Click to expand...

In the mind of MTG, patriotic means discarding your sacred vows. Whether it is public service vows, her marriage vows, or any other vows. Therefore, sitting aside her vows made to serve in Congress, she's advocating the dissolution of her country. In short, she's pro-divorce. Thus, defines patriotic as being divorced.

My consulting service on this issue comes with a charge. You're welcome.
 
#484
#484
Vol8188 said:
You're still ignoring the question. Why do I have to take the kid to the FD? Why cannot I not just leave them to die?

Rather, you believe I should be forced to take this child to the FD. That infringes upon my my personal rights.

Why is that infringement only acceptable in 1 of the 2 scenarios to you?

You continue to dodge this question.
Click to expand...
Your premise is asinine to compare the obligation of traveling to fd with the financial responsibility, and risk to life of carrying a fetus to term.
 
#485
#485
ClearwaterVol said:
Your premise is asinine to compare the obligation of traveling to fd with the financial responsibility, and risk to life of carrying a fetus to term.
Click to expand...

That’s not what I’m comparing. I’ve clearly stated the same thing about 50x for you now.

Why is it acceptable to allow the child to die if they can be saved?

You’re claiming that you’re just inducing labor and letting whatever happens (death) to happen. The obvious question here is why is that only acceptable to you in 1 of these 2 scenarios? Why should we not save both when/if possible?
 
#486
#486
What do you do with people that voted blue that live in red states? Do you force all of them to move to a blue state? 😂
 
#487
#487
Orange defense said:
What do you do with people that voted blue that live in red states? Do you force all of them to move to a blue state? 😂
Click to expand...

What happens if you vote blue and red wins? The same thing would happen here. Sorry, you got out voted. Move or stay, your call.

I’m not sure why you find that comical in terms of secession but not in terms of democracy in general
 
#488
#488
Vol8188 said:
That’s not what I’m comparing. I’ve clearly stated the same thing about 50x for you now.

Why is it acceptable to allow the child to die if they can be saved?

You’re claiming that you’re just inducing labor and letting whatever happens (death) to happen. The obvious question here is why is that only acceptable to you in 1 of these 2 scenarios? Why should we not save both when/if possible?
Click to expand...
The difference seems obvious.
In one scenario you have the rights of the mother weighed against the rights of the fetus.
In the second scenario you only have the rights of the baby to be considered.

Not anywhere close to an apples to apples comparison.
 
#489
#489
luthervol said:
The difference seems obvious.
In one scenario you have the rights of the mother weighed against the rights of the fetus.
In the second scenario you only have the rights of the baby to be considered.

Not anywhere close to an apples to apples comparison.
Click to expand...

How are the rights of the mother being infringed by inducing labor and saving the child rather than inducing labor and allowing the child to die?

You’ll have to explain that to me. It seems like nothing changes in either scenario for the mother
 
#490
#490
WoodsmanVol said:
In the mind of MTG, patriotic means discarding your sacred vows. Whether it is public service vows, her marriage vows, or any other vows. Therefore, sitting aside her vows made to serve in Congress, she's advocating the dissolution of her country. In short, she's pro-divorce. Thus, defines patriotic as being divorced.

My consulting service on this issue comes with a charge. You're welcome.
Click to expand...
You REALLY want to start discussing politicians (of either party) and wedding vows? REALLY????
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#491
#491
Vol8188 said:
How are the rights of the mother being infringed by inducing labor and saving the child rather than inducing labor and allowing the child to die?

You’ll have to explain that to me. It seems like nothing changes in either scenario for the mother
Click to expand...
I don't believe saving a 15 week old fetus is feasible......by any metric.
 
#492
#492
OrangeTsar said:
You REALLY want to start discussing politicians (of either party) and wedding vows? REALLY????
Click to expand...

Not my fault your thought process is so restrictive you can't see the parallel between MTG's words and vow-breaking. Maybe this person can help you, I can't:
iu
 
#493
#493
WoodsmanVol said:
Not my fault your thought process is so restrictive you can't see the parallel between MTG's words and vow-breaking. Maybe this person can help you, I can't:
iu
Click to expand...
Not at all. I am merely pointing out that if we are going to use adherence to wedding vows as a proxy indicator of patriotism or commitment, we better be ready to send a lot of politicians packing. (Not that most Americans wouldn’t have any problem at all with that) 😉
 
#494
#494
luthervol said:
I don't believe saving a 15 week old fetus is feasible......by any metric.
Click to expand...

Those aren’t the only fetuses that are aborted. If the technology is there and a child is capable of being saved, why would you?
 
#495
#495
Vol8188 said:
Those aren’t the only fetuses that are aborted. If the technology is there and a child is capable of being saved, why would you?
Click to expand...
So you are wanting to draw the arbitrary line of when there should be an attempt to save an aborted fetus?
 
#496
#496
luthervol said:
So you are wanting to draw the arbitrary line of when there should be an attempt to save an aborted fetus?
Click to expand...

Not at all. My line is if we can, we should save all. It seems only you are drawing the line. Therefore I’m trying to understand where it is and why it’s at that point?

Why would you not save a child if capable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#498
#498
Vol8188 said:
Not at all. My line is if we can, we should save all. It seems only you are drawing the line. Therefore I’m trying to understand where it is and why it’s at that point?

Why would you not save a child if capable?
Click to expand...
If we can? lol
Lets say there is a 15% chance that a 17 week old fetus can be saved to have a "normal" life with an estimated medical expenditure of $3.5 million.
Where does that fall in your simplistic "if we can" view.
 
#499
#499
luthervol said:
If we can? lol
Lets say there is a 15% chance that a 17 week old fetus can be saved to have a "normal" life with an estimated medical expenditure of $3.5 million.
Where does that fall in your simplistic "if we can" view.
Click to expand...

You realize Roe v Wade allowed for 27 week abortions right? Idk why you keep pretending these are/were capped at 15-17 weeks.

I’m sure we spend millions raising a baby too. Why do you consider one right and one wrong? You continue to ignore the question
 
#500
#500
OrangeTsar said:
Not at all. I am merely pointing out that if we are going to use adherence to wedding vows as a proxy indicator of patriotism or commitment, we better be ready to send a lot of politicians packing. (Not that most Americans wouldn’t have any problem at all with that) 😉
Click to expand...

Well now, how 'bout that. Speaking of packing, don't MTG and her buddy, Lauren Boebert, already pack? Asking for a friend.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top