From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
82
Views

Re: Why did GOPers go Anti-Women

82 Views
Message 1 of 55

@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:



@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Back to the topic - they didn't., they just moved more pro-baby.


No, Republicans most certainly DID vote to remove life sustaining health care for 32 million Americans, including babies, ..... attempting to "move" Americans, including babies, to needless suffering and death!


Do you really consider opposing socialized medicine to be Anti-Woman. Do you really consider saving the lives of babies to be anti-Woman?


I never stated nor advanced any such arguments rk.

So your two disingenuous questions consist of back to back straw man arguments ...... all to evade a fact that clearly points out the contradiction in your belief about  being "pro baby".


No straw, no disingenuous. you have opined that being against baby killing (abortion) is being anti-woman - that is the theme of this topic.

Yes .... straw man arguments.

Yes .... they are "disingenuous".

And yes .... you've just repeated one with your made-up argument about something I never stated nor advanced!

 

You brought up "life sustaining health care" What were you talking about if not socialized medicine?

Health care needed to sustain the life of babies. The health care you want to take away while purporting to save the lives of babies!

 

Your "straw" posts are getting a bit stall. It is time to find a new buzz word.

No ...... "It is time" to stop employing your "straw man arguments"!


 


A pleasure chatting with you as always - ta-ta.


As always - another disingenuous gesture.

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
82
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
112
Views

Re: Why did GOPers go Anti-Women

112 Views
Message 2 of 55

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:



@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Back to the topic - they didn't., they just moved more pro-baby.


No, Republicans most certainly DID vote to remove life sustaining health care for 32 million Americans, including babies, ..... attempting to "move" Americans, including babies, to needless suffering and death!


Do you really consider opposing socialized medicine to be Anti-Woman. Do you really consider saving the lives of babies to be anti-Woman?


I never stated nor advanced any such arguments rk.

So your two disingenuous questions consist of back to back straw man arguments ...... all to evade a fact that clearly points out the contradiction in your belief about  being "pro baby".


No straw, no disingenuous. you have opined that being against baby killing (abortion) is being anti-woman - that is the theme of this topic.

Yes .... straw man arguments.

Yes .... they are "disingenuous".

And yes .... you've just repeated one with your made-up argument about something I never stated nor advanced!

 

You brought up "life sustaining health care" What were you talking about if not socialized medicine?

Health care needed to sustain the life of babies. The health care you want to take away while purporting to save the lives of babies!

 

Your "straw" posts are getting a bit stall. It is time to find a new buzz word.

No ...... "It is time" to stop employing your "straw man arguments"!


 


A pleasure chatting with you as always - ta-ta.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
112
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
126
Views

Re: Why did GOPers go Anti-Women

126 Views
Message 3 of 55

@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:



@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Back to the topic - they didn't., they just moved more pro-baby.


No, Republicans most certainly DID vote to remove life sustaining health care for 32 million Americans, including babies, ..... attempting to "move" Americans, including babies, to needless suffering and death!


Do you really consider opposing socialized medicine to be Anti-Woman. Do you really consider saving the lives of babies to be anti-Woman?


I never stated nor advanced any such arguments rk.

So your two disingenuous questions consist of back to back straw man arguments ...... all to evade a fact that clearly points out the contradiction in your belief about  being "pro baby".


No straw, no disingenuous. you have opined that being against baby killing (abortion) is being anti-woman - that is the theme of this topic.

Yes .... straw man arguments.

Yes .... they are "disingenuous".

And yes .... you've just repeated one with your made-up argument about something I never stated nor advanced!

 

You brought up "life sustaining health care" What were you talking about if not socialized medicine?

Health care needed to sustain the life of babies. The health care you want to take away while purporting to save the lives of babies!

 

Your "straw" posts are getting a bit stall. It is time to find a new buzz word.

No ...... "It is time" to stop employing your "straw man arguments"!


 

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
126
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
142
Views

Re: Why did GOPers go Anti-Women

142 Views
Message 4 of 55

@myexper wrote:



@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Back to the topic - they didn't., they just moved more pro-baby.


No, Republicans most certainly DID vote to remove life sustaining health care for 32 million Americans, including babies, ..... attempting to "move" Americans, including babies, to needless suffering and death!


Do you really consider opposing socialized medicine to be Anti-Woman. Do you really consider saving the lives of babies to be anti-Woman?


I never stated nor advanced any such arguments rk.

So your two disingenuous questions consist of back to back straw man arguments ...... all to evade a fact that clearly points out the contradiction in your belief about  being "pro baby".


No straw, no disingenuous. you have opined that being against baby killing (abortion) is being anti-woman - that is the theme of this topic. You brought up "life sustaining health care" What were you talking about if not socialized medicine?

 

Your "straw" posts are getting a bit stall. It is time to find a new buzz word.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
142
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
162
Views

Re: Why did GOPers go Anti-Women

162 Views
Message 5 of 55



@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Back to the topic - they didn't., they just moved more pro-baby.


No, Republicans most certainly DID vote to remove life sustaining health care for 32 million Americans, including babies, ..... attempting to "move" Americans, including babies, to needless suffering and death!


Do you really consider opposing socialized medicine to be Anti-Woman. Do you really consider saving the lives of babies to be anti-Woman?


I never stated nor advanced any such arguments rk.

So your two disingenuous questions consist of back to back straw man arguments ...... all to evade a fact that clearly points out the contradiction in your belief about  being "pro baby".

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
162
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
160
Views

Re: Why did GOPers go Anti-Women

160 Views
Message 6 of 55

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Back to the topic - they didn't., they just moved more pro-baby.


No, Republicans most certainly DID vote to remove life sustaining health care for 32 million Americans, including babies, ..... attempting to "move" Americans, including babies, to needless suffering and death!


Do you really consider opposing socialized medicine to be Anti-Woman. Do you really consider saving the lives of babies to be anti-Woman?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
160
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
184
Views

Re: Why did GOPers go Anti-Women

184 Views
Message 7 of 55

@rk9152 wrote:

Back to the topic - they didn't., they just moved more pro-baby.


No, Republicans most certainly DID vote to remove life sustaining health care for 32 million Americans, including babies, ..... attempting to "move" Americans, including babies, to needless suffering and death!

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
184
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
188
Views

Re: Why did GOPers go Anti-Women

188 Views
Message 8 of 55

Back to the topic - they didn't., they just moved more pro-baby.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
188
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
201
Views

Re: Why did GOPers go Anti-Women

201 Views
Message 9 of 55

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

Sad and immoral that the Extreme Righties and Alt-Right want what they call "right to life' in reference to only fetuses. Right to life needs to be all encompassing .......... and it does not include putting children in cages at our border, ignoring the welfare of the mother, ignoring those children once they are born, and not committing to helping the parent or parents in raising that child. Shallow minded and hypocritical.


It is hard to take seriously anyone who want to lump the execution of a murder, or a soldier on the battle field with abortion as has been done here.

 

The children in protective custody because of the actions of their parents are hardly being aborted.

 

And it is sick to equate preferring a society of proud, capable self-sufficient people rather than a welfare state with baby killing.


Yup ..... The (corporate) welfare created by Republicans as well as their attempts to eliminate life sustaining health care causing needless death and suffering for ALL Americans, including babies,  is indeed "sick."

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
201
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
219
Views

Re: Why did GOPers go Anti-Women

219 Views
Message 10 of 55

@ChasKy53 wrote:

Sad and immoral that the Extreme Righties and Alt-Right want what they call "right to life' in reference to only fetuses. Right to life needs to be all encompassing .......... and it does not include putting children in cages at our border, ignoring the welfare of the mother, ignoring those children once they are born, and not committing to helping the parent or parents in raising that child. Shallow minded and hypocritical.


It is hard to take seriously anyone who want to lump the execution of a murder, or a soldier on the battle field with abortion as has been done here.

 

The children in protective custody because of the actions of their parents are hardly being aborted.

 

And it is sick to equate preferring a society of proud, capable self-sufficient people rather than a welfare state with baby killing.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
219
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors