Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Political News and Policies

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Political News and Policies

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    You know the left has lost the moral side of the abortion debate when they compare sperm to a developing fetus with clearly recognizable human parts that is on its way to being a fully functioning human being. If you think abortion should be legal, then fine, but acting like its the moral equivalent of throwing away some sperm really makes it look like you have some doubts deep down. The sheer absurdity of that speaks for itself. It's like saying that driving a car and driving a boat are the same thing since they both involve steering.

    The left uses this tactic all the time - they try to debate when life "begins" because they want to steer the attention away from the awfulness of the act of abortion.
    So, after reading my post, none of that sunk in? You would label me an awful person for preferring to save my wife's life?
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-31-2017, 05:52 PM.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • Re: Political News and Policies

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      So, after reading my post, none of that sunk in? You would label me an awful person for preferring to save my wife's life?
      Do I really need to preface that I believe in saving the mother's life if that's what it comes to? I'm talking about the abortions that have nothing to do with rape, incest, or saving the mother's life (I.e. The overwhelming majority of them).

      I was directing my post more at Freddie and Vnzla who have talked a bunch about sperm.

      Comment


      • Re: Political News and Policies

        If someone is pro-choice, then obviously I'm not doing anything to change anyone's minds or vice-versa. I just wish people would own the realities of the position. You lose a ton of credibility when you compare some dried up dead sperm to a fetus that increasingly develops into a fully functioning human by the day. When I read the sperm stuff, the impression I form in my head is that the person is being deliberately blind to the realities of the act so that they can find peace in their position. Sure, that's making an assumption on my part, but we all do that.

        Comment


        • Re: Political News and Policies

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Do I really need to preface that I believe in saving the mother's life if that's what it comes to? I'm talking about the abortions that have nothing to do with rape, incest, or saving the mother's life (I.e. The overwhelming majority of them).
          But you said abortion was a terrible act. And how do you know what the over-whelming majority of them are? Is there a statistic? I somehow doubt that had we been forced to make that terrible decision, it would've been reported to any sort of data collection agency, nor would I have submitted to that.

          I know TONS of people who have pregnancy issues. They happen way more often than I bet you would think, and most people do NOT make their private struggles in these matters public, or even share with most of their family. It's very often a very private matter.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • Re: Political News and Policies

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Do I really need to preface that I believe in saving the mother's life if that's what it comes to? I'm talking about the abortions that have nothing to do with rape, incest, or saving the mother's life (I.e. The overwhelming majority of them).

            I was directing my post more at Freddie and Vnzla who have talked a bunch about sperm.
            How do you know that? also for somebody that wants small government are you trying to tell us that you want the government to make that decision for us?
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Political News and Policies

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              How do you know that? also for somebody that wants small government are you trying to tell us that you want the government to make that decision for us?
              Google the Guttmacher Institute study about it. Most mothers who answer fall into the category of not wanting it/not able to afford it. Sure, some people wouldn't want to bring up the fact that they were raped, and I understand that, but why would you answer "don't want to be a single mother", "financial reasons", "done having children", or "not mature enough" if those weren't real reasons. Are these people straight up liars?
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-31-2017, 06:39 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Political News and Policies

                I am still waiting on the correct number of abortions performed since the 1970s...
                Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                Comment


                • Re: Political News and Policies

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Google the Guttmacher Institute study about it. Most mothers who answer fall into the category of not wanting it/not able to afford it. Sure, some people wouldn't want to bring up the fact that they were raped, and I understand that, but why would you answer "don't want to be a single mother", "financial reasons", "done having children", or "not mature enough" if those weren't real reasons. Are these people straight up liars?
                  There are many reasons for somebody to do that the point is that the government shouldn't be making those decisions for anybody.

                  It also seems to me like conservatives love this babies but what is their plans for this babies? how many of this babies are black or brown? Anne Coulter seems to think brown babies shouldn't be born, so what are the type of abortions that matter on this whole argument?

                  Are conservatives ready to give social programs to this babies or they just want them to survive by themselves? I mean doing that is socialism so that is forbidden.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Political News and Policies

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    So, after reading my post, none of that sunk in? You would label me an awful person for preferring to save my wife's life?
                    Kid. First, when a mother's life is in jeopardy you will find a lot of Christians very understanding of that. I wouldn't paint that brush so broad. Many understand the rape example as well.

                    Also, you say: "hypocrisy is one of the terrible traits a person can possess"...yet all you are doing is admonishing others who *you say* judge. Your "hardcore Christian family" is probably tired of you judging them as well. I'm also sure they don't appreciate you describing them as having a "narrow sliver of existence". Your "larger world-view of things" must mean you know better, right? So, we went from hypocrisy to condescending?

                    Well, anyway, I read about the US history you are mentioning decades ago. Maybe 40 years ago. I've also been uncomfortable when people try to link Christianity to the USA, so I agree with part of what you say. Still, I'm not demonizing people for it. It's really pretty small stuff compared to eternity...which is what Christians are talking about.

                    BTW, rather than go into detail you are basically anti-Republican. That's fine. The Republican Party is no beacon of goodness. Also, you are truly a product of our culture. This is the viewpoint taught in public schools today. Spot on. You clearly do not believe in absolute truth either which is a strong sign of where you stand. That is not so fine if you claim to be a Christian because that is a foundational concept in the Christian Bible...which is a big reason Christians do not fit into the culture in 2017.

                    The reality is, people do not want to be convicted. People want to abort. They want to commit adultery. They worship money and power. People don't want to hear the absolute truth. They prefer moral relativism so they can go about their lives without interference. That is why we have this abortion debate.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Political News and Policies

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      But you said abortion was a terrible act. And how do you know what the over-whelming majority of them are? Is there a statistic? I somehow doubt that had we been forced to make that terrible decision, it would've been reported to any sort of data collection agency, nor would I have submitted to that.

                      I know TONS of people who have pregnancy issues. They happen way more often than I bet you would think, and most people do NOT make their private struggles in these matters public, or even share with most of their family. It's very often a very private matter.
                      I think you are extremely naive if you think a large portion of abortions are due to rape or a mother's life.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Political News and Policies

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Google the Guttmacher Institute study about it. Most mothers who answer fall into the category of not wanting it/not able to afford it. Sure, some people wouldn't want to bring up the fact that they were raped, and I understand that, but why would you answer "don't want to be a single mother", "financial reasons", "done having children", or "not mature enough" if those weren't real reasons. Are these people straight up liars?
                        Note that the 92% is probably higher and the study was done by a PP affiliate. We can discuss the topic of abortion in different ways but claiming a substantial percentage is due to rape or medical reasons is simply not true.

                        92% of Women Cite "Social" or "Other" Reasons
                        New Study Examines Reasons Women Have Abortions

                        By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D.

                        Why do women have abortions? For over 15 years, those asking that question have had to rely on a 1987 study that some were concerned might have become outdated in light of the declining number of abortions and shifting abortion demographics.

                        Now a new study from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood's special research affiliate, brings our understanding of women's abortion decisions up to date. While showing that women's basic reasons have largely remained the same, the study presents some compelling new data that those reaching out to abortion-prone women will want to consider.

                        A couple of conclusions are very apparent from this data. First, those who wish to use the so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest, life of the mother, and genetic disability to argue for the necessity of abortion on demand will continue to find it difficult to make that case based on the reasons women offer for their abortions. Ninety-two percent cited what might be termed "social" or "other" reasons, rather than medical reasons or sexual assault, as the primary basis for their abortions.

                        And those who cited medical reasons often appear to have been stating their own opinions (fear that drug or alcohol use may have harmed the baby, inability to handle morning sickness, etc.) rather than reporting any formal diagnosis by a doctor. Less than a percent each of women even mentioned rape or incest as a factor in their abortions at all.

                        The 2004 study, which appeared in the September 2005 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (formerly Family Planning Perspectives), surveyed 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large abortion centers across the country. The survey was then followed up with in-depth interviews with 38 women at four centers.1

                        Women in the first group filled out an eight-page survey identifying their reasons for coming to the clinic, hospital, or doctor's office to have an abortion, and listed their demographic characteristics, such as age, race, income, marital status, etc. Women from the first group who agreed to sit for 30–60 minute recorded interviews discussing those decisions in more detail constituted the second group.

                        There were a number of responses women gave to the question as to what was "the most important reason" they had their abortions: they were "not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong," cited by 25%; they "can't afford a baby now," cited by 23%; feelings that they had "completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown," cited by 19%; and "having relationship problems/don't want to be a single mother" was cited by 8%.

                        An additional 7% identified not feeling "mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young," while 4% cited their view that the child "would interfere with education or career plans."

                        Notably, only 4% cited a "physical problem with my health" as the main factor in their abortions, while 3% identified "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" as the most important reason behind their decisions.

                        Less than 0.5% cited each of the following reasons as most significant: rape, a husband or partner's desire that a woman have an abortion, parental wishes, or a desire to keep others from knowing the woman had sex or got pregnant. AGI listed the remaining 6% as "other."

                        Authors of both the 1987 and 2004 studies took the long list of reasons that women cited and tried to assign them to general categories, though they did not necessarily combine these in the same way. As a consequence, reasons that were grouped together in one category in 1987 may have ended up in different categories in 2004.

                        To try and make comparisons possible, authors of the 2004 study went back and recalculated and re-reported the 1987 reasons as they would have been categorized in 2004. Consequently, numbers would not seem to match up for anyone looking at the original 1987 study and the numbers reported for 1987 in the new study, but this is not necessarily a mistake.

                        Economic reasons, a feeling of being unable to afford to have a baby, were cited by 23% as the most important reason in 2004 and 21% in 1987. Those citing childbearing concerns or concerns about other dependents as most important jumped from 8% to 19%, while those identifying relationship issues as primary declined (from 13% to 8%).

                        Women who cited immaturity as the most important reason also dropped from 11% in 1987 to 7% in 2004 as did educational and career interference (from 10% to 4%). "Other" reasons jumped from 1% to 6%. For the most part, the remaining primary reasons were close to what they were in the 1987 survey.

                        While we have concentrated on women's most important reason for their abortions, most women in AGI's survey cited more than one factor in their decisions. Among women citing at least two reasons, the claim of inability to afford the child repeatedly showed up.

                        High numbers of women also mentioned concerns for how the baby would change their lives (74%), in regards to education, employment, career (38%), or other family members (32%). Relationship issues--that a woman was unsure about her relationship, didn't or couldn't marry the father, etc.--totaled 48%. At least 38% mentioned that they had abortions, at least in part, because they had "completed my childbearing."

                        Comment


                        • Re: Political News and Policies

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          If someone is pro-choice, then obviously I'm not doing anything to change anyone's minds or vice-versa. I just wish people would own the realities of the position. You lose a ton of credibility when you compare some dried up dead sperm to a fetus that increasingly develops into a fully functioning human by the day. When I read the sperm stuff, the impression I form in my head is that the person is being deliberately blind to the realities of the act so that they can find peace in their position. Sure, that's making an assumption on my part, but we all do that.
                          Not at all. I'm just stating facts. Abortion is legal because a fetus at conception can't be proven to be human anymore than sperm.

                          All I'm talking is facts. Not pro choice, life, or opinion. Just proven facts of life.

                          Nobody can say when a human life begins, fact.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Political News and Policies

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            Not at all. I'm just stating facts. Abortion is legal because a fetus at conception can't be proven to be human anymore than sperm.

                            All I'm talking is facts. Not pro choice, life, or opinion. Just proven facts of life.

                            Nobody can say when a human life begins, fact.
                            OK. Just for grins. What is the time, exact or not, that you think a human being becomes human?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Political News and Policies

                              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                              Not at all. I'm just stating facts. Abortion is legal because a fetus at conception can't be proven to be human anymore than sperm.

                              All I'm talking is facts. Not pro choice, life, or opinion. Just proven facts of life.

                              Nobody can say when a human life begins, fact.
                              So why is one charged with double murder in 37 states if they kill a pregnant woman, and charged with double murder on the federal level if it's a federal offense?

                              Both of us can point to laws, but text written by judges/representatives does nothing to change the fact that a fetus has distinguishable human features that get more prevalent by the day, and if nature works it's course without disturbances, it will grow into a fully functional unique human being. It's more than sperm. Facts. Indisputable. Can't be debated.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Political News and Policies

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                So why is one charged with double murder in 37 states if they kill a pregnant woman, and charged with double murder on the federal level if it's a federal offense?

                                Both of us can point to laws, but text written by judges/representatives does nothing to change the fact that a fetus has distinguishable human features that get more prevalent by the day, and if nature works it's course without disturbances, it will grow into a fully functional unique human being. It's more than sperm. Facts. Indisputable. Can't be debated.
                                Those laws are for a certain stage of pregnancy. You can't take a pregnancy test then get killed by a drunk driver then charge double homicide.

                                Maybe that's the disconnect, of course at some point during pregnancy there is a human being formed, which is why there are limits on abortion.

                                But you do not know when life begins, and there's certainly nothing proven that separates a fertilized egg making it a human.
                                Last edited by freddielewis14; 07-31-2017, 08:58 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X