Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Sackeshi, Oct 4, 2019.
Well you said "not really." Is that a clear and definite "NO?"
Even if those changes include providing taxpayer funded abortion on demand?
Would the HCP already be in the abortion 'game?'
Please stop editing my comments for content. If you would like to draw attention to a specific portion, emboldenning, italicizing or underlining are great ways to do that without decontaxtualizing my comment. I don't do it to you, please don't do it to me.
Nope. Most arent.
Given that we start more wars and are involved in more wars than any other nation in modern history I seriously doubt that would be the case.
So you really think the US should have no military at all?
Does it make a difference?
If it didn't, I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Well then how the hell could the government turn to them to provide abortion?
A military with the singular focus of DEFENDING our nation ONLY would be infinitely preferable to the current situation.
Any military capable of aggression is going to be abused by those in power which stems from your original contention that all laws that do not "promote social order" are "abuse".
Better get used to it
Are you pro life or pro choice
Or just REPORT it and let the mods EXPLAIN it to him!
Oh yes, because you NEVER edit people's posts in your quoting! You only EVER quote posts in their entirety!
Even if that was true, and it's not, what TF has that got to do with the fact that you cherry pick almost every post? ??….and obviously I'm not the only one who notices….
By mandating they comply or shut down.
...what most people call 'by force.'
Describe what a 'military incapable of aggression' is like... I don't see how any military (in context of funding) is immune to being abused by those with authority over it.
Save, perhaps, for a true, all-volunteer civil defense force.
My request will be honored or I will stop responding
A military that is purely defense oriented is NOT a threat to any other nation and therefore not aggressive.
A military that is capable of being a threat to any other nation can be abused by those in power as a form of aggression.
Better to just put him ignore. Saves wasting time IMO.
But what is the difference? How does a 'purely defense oriented' military differ from what we have?
It sounds like you're suggesting we could alter the physical makeup of the military to make it unabusable. Im asking how that would work, because it seems to me any career military regardless its size/funding/makeup is going to be dangerous if the wrong people gain authority over it.
I don't have anyone on ignore. Everyone makes a good point eventually.
Separate names with a comma.