Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t [W:139]

[prometeus]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

Everything one presents is "ones personal view"

You of course are casting reality aside in favor of your preference and conviction.

you're not debating.

Right, because I asked you to support your assertion with something commonly accepted and also showed why your thinking was flawed?

What I explained is also the basis for natural rights, their self-evidence

Yea, self evidence is always a good excuse for lack of arguments.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

That legal example was a case where the Maltese (From Malta a country ruled by the Catholic Church) parents who were Catholic did not want the twins separated even though they knew both twins would die if they were not separated.

It was not a case where the twins would live if not separated but the parents wanted the surgery to separate them.

The courts stepped in and one one lived the other died.

That was your example, which has nothing to do with her claim being nonsense. There can be any number of examples of medical need (self defense), and they will not cause examples that negate her claim to go away.

There are, in fact, instances when a twin is not permitted to terminate the other twin in order to improve standard of living.

One more time: all the self defense cases in the world do not negate the fact that sometimes born people can force another to allow the use of facilities. And it's based in right to life.

The fact remains - her statement rests on a false premise. If the premise is corrected, she argues against her own position. It's sad and funny.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

You of course are casting reality aside in favor of your preference and conviction.

Right, because I asked you to support your assertion with something commonly accepted and also showed why your thinking was flawed?

Yea, self evidence is always a good excuse for lack of arguments.

Your inability to grasp the concept of natural rights, the basis of the constitution, is not relevant to the outcome of debate. Good day.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

That was your example, which has nothing to do with her claim being nonsense....

There are, in fact, instances when a twin is not permitted to terminate the other twin in order to improve standard of living.

That was NOT my example.

Now please cite the law forbidding parents from having their conjoined twins separated so one might have better quality of life.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

Your inability to grasp the concept of natural rights, the basis of the constitution, is not relevant to the outcome of debate. Good day.

Actually it is your inability to support your assertion and subsequent diversion is the problem.
I understand the concept of natural rights and also the fact that it is fallacious. Just because some of the founding fathers mention it and you believe does not make it real or anything more than a concept. On the other hand, rights as outlined in the Constitution and recognized and protected are reality. You seem to have difficulty with the later.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

Actually it is your inability to support your assertion and subsequent diversion is the problem.
I understand the concept of natural rights and also the fact that it is fallacious. Just because some of the founding fathers mention it and you believe does not make it real or anything more than a concept. On the other hand, rights as outlined in the Constitution and recognized and protected are reality. You seem to have difficulty with the later.

So funny. This is exactly what the founders feared would happen when those less inclined to sociological understanding employed the Bill of Rights.

To add insult to ignorance, the right to life is enumerated (not "outlined").

You deny the basis of the Constitution and substitute flawed reason in its interpretation. That's sophomoric and sad.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

So funny. This is exactly what the founders feared would happen when those less inclined to sociological understanding employed the Bill of Rights.

Really and you offer what exactly to support this newest assertion?

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

Really and you offer what exactly to support this newest assertion?

I needn't convince you. Anyone that understands the basis of the Constitution can see the absurdity in your dismissal of its premise and your thus perverted interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

I needn't convince you. Anyone that understands the basis of the Constitution can see the absurdity in your dismissal of its premise and your thus perverted interpretation of the Bill of Rights. See, for an example of the ignorance: rights being "outlined". The mere use of that term clearly demonstrates your insufficient understanding.

It is not a matter of convincing me, it is a matter of supporting your assertions which you clearly are unable to do. Further more I did not dismiss any premise of the Constitution, only the concept of so called natural rights. I also explained the basis of my position. You on the other hand are resorting to misrepresentation or hiding behind self evidence.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

It is not a matter of convincing me,

I'm glad you agree.

it is a matter of supporting your assertions which you clearly are unable to do.

False. You fail to grasp the concept of natural rights and its integral place in the interpretation of the Constitution. If you reject the premise the document is worthless, as it was not created according to your sophomoric understanding of rights and their derivation. Any attempt to re-interpret the Constitution under a false premise is, in fact, a perversion of the Constitution, a travesty of logic and reason and intellectually dishonest.

Your failure to grasp is not evidence of a failure to explain.

Good day.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

Which makes the entire lying nonsense ruling appropriately based upon lying nonsense.

Why, you seem to be doing the technique known as 'quote mining'. Did you not read the rest of the post choiceone gave? It gave further information. Let me quote her for you.

Fortunately, however, the lawyers weren't interested in bringing to court a case that challenged Texas abortion law on that particular point. They were instead interested in bringing to court a class action suit on behalf of all pregnant women who wanted but were denied abortions by Texas law, regardless of their reasons. Hence, Roe v Wade never involved NM's lie.

In fact, after NM signed the legal document drawn up by her lawyers, to the effect that she wanted an abortion and was denied one in Texas based on Texas abortion laws, she didn't do anything for the case. She wasn't even in court. Everything was handled by the lawyers, who never lied, but simply presented legal evidence and legal argument to support their case.

These two paragraphs made your response inappropriate.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

I'm glad you agree.

yet that does not invalidate that you are unable to support your assertion(s)

False.

Just as expected. You deny instead of supporting your premise.

You fail to grasp the concept of natural rights and its integral place in the interpretation of the Constitution.

I have already explained to you that I very clearly understand where the concept come from. That however does not alter the reality that is it a concept only with no basis in reality.

If you reject the premise the document is worthless

The document is worthless only for those who either due to lack of understanding or stubborn ignorance attempt to tie it to the past instead of the true purpose it was intended for, self determination of a society in the present.
To this effect I point to the words of Thomas Paine: "The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age, may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living, or the dead?"

Any attempt to re-interpret the Constitution under a false premise is, in fact, a perversion of the Constitution, a travesty of logic and reason and intellectually dishonest.

Because you can not get past any of your preconceived notions or simply do not understand the real purpose of the Constitution?

Your failure to grasp is not evidence of a failure to explain.

My grasping or not does not negate the fact that you have still not offered ANYTHING to support your assertion(s) or explained the reasoning the underlies your position. Hiding behind self evidence and denials os all you have so far been able to offer.

Good day.

To you too.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

yet that does not invalidate that you are unable to support your assertion(s)

Keep asking for authority regarding a self-evident natural social construct.

haha

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

I've shown you legal example. The fact remains that there are cases wherein the separation is not allowed. Just because it is allowed sometimes (medical reasons, not convenience) does not make your nonsense claim any more legitimate.

You did not show me a law forbidding it. If something is illegal, there is a law that states so.

No insult was intended, I hadn't noticed.

Perhaps you should pay more attention....it's right there to the left of my posts.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

Perhaps you should pay more attention...

I don't think so.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

I don't think so.

We know you don't. It's not something to be proud of.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

Keep asking for authority regarding a self-evident natural social construct.

Why do you continue to misrepresent? I asked for no authority but for you to support your position. The best you can do is hide behind the label of self evident for the asinine assertion, among them the right to life being an enumerated right.

haha

You are only laughing at yourself.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

You are only laughing at yourself.

Wrong. I'm laughing at the position of requesting authority for a self-evident natural social construct. Oneself and all of civilization bears witness to the social contract; its justification is enshrined in liberal western democracies. All that we know and have cries out to the truth of our right to live, speak, express metaphysics, defend ourselves and other human rights.

That you would deny the existence of these rights, in absence of a piece of paper saying so, is comical. Clearly, you don't get it, even after extensive and exquisite explanation. That makes it more funny.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

Wrong. I'm laughing at the position of requesting authority for a self-evident natural social construct. Oneself and all of civilization bears witness to the social contract; its justification is enshrined in liberal western democracies. All that we know and have cries out to the truth of our right to live, speak, express metaphysics, defend ourselves and other human rights.

That you would deny the existence of these rights, in absence of a piece of paper saying so, is comical. Clearly, you don't get it, even after extensive and exquisite explanation. That makes it more funny.

I personally have an issue for when people use the term 'self evident' To me, that is a key word for saying "I believe it, but I can't back it up with logic, reason, or facts, so I proclaim it self evident'

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

I personally have an issue for when people use the term 'self evident' To me, that is a key word for saying "I believe it, but I can't back it up with logic, reason, or facts, so I proclaim it self evident'

Would you agree with removing the right to life if it meant giving up your own?

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

Would you agree with removing the right to life if it meant giving up your own?

I reserve the right to life for myself. Others, depends on the person. For example, Ayman al-Zawahiri. No problem what so ever if someone terminated him. However, there are people I would give up my life for.

However, this diversion does show the term 'self evident' is not so much self evident.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

Wrong. I'm laughing at the position of requesting authority for a self-evident natural social construct.

You are laughing at your own lie then, as I made no such request. If in fact your belief would be valid it would be shared by some others that you could cite. By your reasoning, or rather the lack of it, we should still maintain that we are part of a geocentric system, after all that was also self evident and held far longer than what reality is.

Oneself and all of civilization bears witness to the social contract

Right, but being a social one it can not be a natural one. It is made by humans for humans.

its justification is enshrined in liberal western democracies.

That however dos not make them natural, only man made.

That you would deny the existence of these rights

You are resorting to a lie again. I have not denied the existence of rights, but disputed their origin as you have asserted.

in absence of a piece of paper saying so

In the absebce of said piece of parer they do not exist in any meaningful way. It is that very piece of paper that guarantees their recognition, protection and enforcement when necessary.

is comical.

Yes your ability to reason is.

 

[digsbe]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

She's a prime example of why abortion should be made illegal. A sexually irresponsible, unrepentive monster kills their child and touts the "my body my right" refuse.

Why should the people elect someone who's openly admitting the have the morals of a barbarian and the personal restraint of some horny animal that can't say no to sex when they aren't ready for children? If she was so irresponsible and immature to the point of having sex before ready to bear children and then killed that child in response to her irresponsibility then what makes her think she's ready to take on the responsibility or an elected office? It's one thing if someone makes a mistake and then sees the error of their ways or made the choice in fear or ignorance, it's another to tout that as something "heroic."

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

...the personal restraint of some horny animal that can't say no to sex when they aren't ready for children?

Hey now, you're indicting everyone.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Finally, a Politician Admits to Having an Abortion Simply Because She Wasn’t Read

What she did wasn't heroic; it was selfish.

She didn't want to experience what her older sisters had, so she aborted. Sadly, although she had sense enough to see that kids can make life challenging, she didn't figure out the having-sex-makes-babies-so-don't-have-sex-when-you're-16 thing.