moviefreakedmind

Possessed said:

Not that anybody asked or cares what I think about it, considering I hardly ever post in this thread, but I am pro life with the two very important, and very much real, exceptions of cases of rape and cases of medical complications or health problems that could very likely cause harm to the mother or the fetus if carried to term. And I will even admit that I’m much more adamant about the second one than I used to be since reading a story of a certain member of this forum.

And I’m not conservative or republican, or democrat, I’m just me because it seems silly to pick a party before knowing the issues. But I don’t care much about politics in general anyway.

I agree completely. I don’t get why that is a controversial position to hold.

Are there any accounts that got their names from this thread’s suggestions?

darth_ender said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Since when are children capable of making all these crazy lifelong decisions? I mean, a couple years ago it was common knowledge that 100% of kids have no idea what they’re talking about 99% of the time.

Times change, my friend.

I know. I’m just reminding everyone that kids can’t be trusted to make any decisions beyond, “which G-rated Pixar movie should I watch?” Even then you can’t trust them because they might pick Cars 2, so why are parents suddenly the most evil people since Hitler for not taking their supposedly transgender 7 year-olds to a doctor to treat their gender dysphoria? How about teaching your children that if you have the parts of a boy or a girl, then that’s what you technically are, but you can still dress, do, play, and act however you want, and once you’re 18 or a legally emancipated adult, you can pursue whatever gender therapy you want; what’s so bad about that?

Since when are children capable of making all these crazy lifelong decisions? I mean, a couple years ago it was common knowledge that 100% of kids have no idea what they’re talking about 99% of the time.

This is why I don’t share personal information online!

NeverarGreat said:

But tell us how you really feel.

Believe it or not, I kind of like his Halloween films. No, I’m not kidding.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I tend to say pro- and anti-abortion.

Pro-abortion is misleading and inflammatory. It goes again to the idea that the left wants lots and lots of abortions, which is flat out wrong.

Pro-life and pro-abortion are both right-wing distortions.

It could also go to the idea that the left wants abortions for anyone that wants them (apparently regardless of their reasoning). That tends to be the sentiment behind the rabidly pro-choice demonstrators you see at places like the Women’s March, much like the pro-life extreme of being opposed to even the morning after pill. As for pro-life being a rightwing distortion, I don’t necessarily see how. It’s technically accurate.

Okay, there’s two then. You aren’t the one I was referring to though.

DominicCobb said:

According to Fo, I’m a sock. Whether that actually makes me a foot garment or a real human being is up for you to decide.

A lady’s sock, right?

yhwx said:

You don’t love your mother?

Truly honest-to-God? I’m not sure. I’d say more or less. We get along well.

yhwx said:

Love is for fools.

I’ve only truly, honest-to-God loved one person. It didn’t work out, but I wouldn’t say it was foolish.

His films never have a single likable character in them. They’re always inbred rednecks who love murder, rape, and incest, or really loud and obnoxious, amoral piles of garbage.

TV’s Frink said:

Anyone who is truly pro-life should also support all methods of reducing abortions, including sex-education and wide availability of contraception. Unfortunately, and especially when religion is involved, that’s very often not the case.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Sex-ed should start (and cover birth control) around about sixth grade IMHO. Most, if not all, of the parents who are opposed to their children being exposed to this do not educate their own children on sex.

Anti-abortion is much more accurate than pro-life.

I tend to say pro- and anti-abortion.

TV’s Frink said:

Because you secretly love me.

Eh, let’s go with a solid “I like you”. Coming from me, that’s basically a passionate serenade.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

http://originaltrilogy.com/user/KillerQueen/id/25856

Doing it wrong. See thread title, and OP for example of doing it right.

It took me a moment, but now I figured it out. Way too much work.

I’m really not feeling my work tasks today.

Me neither. Why do you think I’m on this website?

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Luckily that almost never happens.

So it’s not a big deal to outlaw it?

Ok, pick the week it’s no longer allowed. Also pick the reasons it is allowed. Also I said “almost never” but is it actually “never?”

I can’t do that because I’m not a constitutional lawyer or a healthcare professional.

Seeing as how I’ve repeatedly reiterated that I’m only opposed to mid to late abortions for the sake of the mother not wanting a child and have also repeatedly reiterated, or at least clearly implied, that those are the instances that I think should be limited, I don’t really understand the confusion surrounding my posts.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

http://originaltrilogy.com/user/KillerQueen/id/25856

Doing it wrong. See thread title, and OP for example of doing it right.

It took me a moment, but now I figured it out. Way too much work.

TV’s Frink said:

Define “late-term.”

I’m a staunch pro-choicer but I don’t think a woman should be allowed to say “I changed my mind, I’m not ready for a baby” at 38 weeks.

That’s basically what I’m saying, although I’d put it around the third trimester at the latest.

Luckily that almost never happens.

So it’s not a big deal to outlaw it?

CatBus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.

I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.

Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?

Abortion on demand, meaning readily available, for anyone that wants it regardless of their reason.

I think that’s a tomayto/tomahto difference, though. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions without reducing the availability of abortions, that position is effectively abortion on demand, although nobody who held that position would describe it as such. “Abortion on demand” only (badly) describes the desired legal landscape, it doesn’t describe the policy goal. Abortion on demand can lead to a significant reduction in the number of abortions, if coupled with increased access to other reproductive healthcare or related services, as the Obama administration more or less proved.

How does it badly describe the desired legal landscape? It sounds accurate to me.

Also, the majority of Americans are against the legalization of late term abortions according to Gallup polling and others. I’ve never once heard anyone provide a defense of late term abortion, excluding for health reasons, but pro-choicers still treat it like it’s a violation of human rights.

http://originaltrilogy.com/user/KillerQueen/id/25856

Why twooffour? He was before my time, but wasn’t he a borderline troll?

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.

I think this is a misconception. There are very few people at all that want to see a constant stream of abortions.

Maybe link to some stories of people demanding it?

Abortion on demand, meaning readily available, for anyone that wants it regardless of their reason.

I’m surprised some of the people who start accounts purely for Myspleen invites don’t create a username with their request in the name.

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

There has been a recent (at least, in the news) fight on the left over abortion and if you have to be pro-choice to be part of the Democratic party. One side says you absolutely have to be, the other says that anti-abortion voices have to be included in order to win House seats and state legislations in Conservative states/districts, in order to then push pro-choice positions.

I find both sides have compelling arguments, unfortunately. I guess it’s the old “does the end justify the means” argument.

There’s more sides than just that. For example, there’s anti-abortion leftists whose goal is to reduce the number of abortions, which they see as completely unrelated to the availability of abortions. To this group, Obama provided a clear leadership example–he did not do anything (that I know of) to reduce the availability of abortions, but his policies successfully reduced the number of abortions to levels lower than they were before Roe v Wade. To your standard “I want to throw doctors and women in jail” anti-abortion type, Obama was as bad as any other recent Democratic president. To your “I just want to stop abortions” anti-abortion type, Obama is a hero/saint/example to us all.

Admittedly this anti-abortion faction is a small group without easy access to bumper sticker technology.

This is the corner I’d fall into, although I think that late term abortions for non-medical reasons (i.e. not wanting to have a child) shouldn’t be available.

EDIT: I actually don’t think that it’s a very small faction of the US population, but in terms of party lines, you’re always going to have a majority of hardcore Republicans saying that all abortion in any circumstance for any reason is a crime against the Almighty while the majority of hardcore Democrats will give it all a blanket, “abortion on demand without apology,” response.

I wouldn’t say “bad”.