- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
simple question
How does one ban abortion (make it murder) and not violate the woman's current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?
now lets be very clear, im not saying one HAS to do so to justify wanting abortion banned and im not asking for reason why you think its ok to violate a womans current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?
If you think its ok to do so thats your choice and its fine by me, posters have stated why they value the woman more or the ZEF more in the past.
what im asking is there anybody that thinks they have a way to ban abortion (make it murder or not, doesnt really matter) and not violate the womans current freedoms, liberties, legal rights and human rights (if you believe in them) including her right to life.
I cant come up with a single way myself nor have i read one. Does one exist? if so please share.
If a man tries to hold you at gun point, rob you, or murder you; how does allowing you to protect yourself not violate his current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including his right to life? When rights clash, the aggressor typically loses.
1.)If a man tries to hold you at gun point, rob you, or murder you; how does allowing you to protect yourself not violate his current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including his right to life?
2.)When rights clash, the aggressor typically loses.
1.)so you dont have an example? i wonder if anybody does
2.) thank you for admitting that ONE always loses
That was an example. When rights clash, one side usually loses. Typically the aggressor.
It's quite simple.
1.)There is no such thing as a human right to an abortion.
2.) It isn't even a constitutional right or a civil right.
3.) It isn't a statutory right. It isn't a right at all.
4.) You can't violate something that does not exist.
5.) Ergo, you simply ban abortion, and you have not violated anyone's rights. Problem solved.
That was an example. When rights clash, one side usually loses. Typically the aggressor.
As it should be, because aggression is evil.
no, i asked for an example where there is no loser, you gave me one where there is a loser and thats EXACTLY my point
then by you own words you are evil for wanting aggression against women
It's a rigged question. Both have rights at stake and when rights clash usually one of them loses, and typically it's the aggressor.
1.)I think the statement of absolute is likely not correct,
2.) however, you are misrepresenting his point
3.)and I do think you know that.
no no you are mistaken its not rigged at all the whole purpose of it is to show that ONE will always lose
its a real question that some around here will ignore the honest and factual answer too
you are NOT ignoring the honest and real answer so you feel its rigged or you seem to think theres another shoe waiting to drop, there isnt
I agree 100% BOTH have rights at stake, there will ALWAYS be a clash and ONE will always lose.
some people simple ignore this fact, so im dying to see them try to BS there way around this fact and try to say one doesnt lose, one poster tried already and failed instantly
BUT at the same time, it would be AWESOME if there was a way for one not to lose because IMO the abortion debate would get even smaller than it is very quickly
the situation of abortion is very unique and not like robbery or murder or rape or slavery,(NOT claiming you said that) its it own unique thing that cant simply be addressed the same way
I think the statement of absolute is likely not correct, however, you are misrepresenting his point and I do think you know that.
1.) by his words and wants its very correct
2.)nope im factually not, he has posted enough to solidfy how correct i am
3.) nope what i know is that his logic is severely faulty and hypocritical, so i simply use it against him. If he doesnt like his own faulty, failed and hypocritical logic used against him he is free to change it
1.)It would be superb if instead of abortion the fetus could be beamed out of the uterus and allowed to mature in some incubator of scientific design.
2.) But I don't think it's completely out of line with robbery or murder or rape.
3.)The sticking point is biology.
He's lying, flaming, and trolling. It's how he do.
Banning homicide as murder is "aggressive" against all those murderers. Ayup. Makes sense.
1.) i agree 100%
wouldnt be the end still many issues to address but it would be GREAT
2.) out of line? no, but its not a parrallel
3.) which is huge
1.)Because I believe it is clear that he is referring to the initiator of force.
2.) Which in this case would be the person seeking abortion.
3.) Left to its own devices, the baby would develop and be born in most cases. To change that requires force, and it's that initiation of force to which he would be responding to.
4.) He's not the initiator of force, but a respond-er. Both sides would be looking to use force.
5.) One against the rights of human life, the other against property and pursuit of happiness.
6.) Though there's also the semantics in the difference between aggression and force.
I don't think it's huge at all if you consider natural state.
simple question
How does one ban abortion (make it murder) and not violate the woman's current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?
now lets be very clear, im not saying one HAS to do so to justify wanting abortion banned and im not asking for reason why you think its ok to violate a womans current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?
If you think its ok to do so thats your choice and its fine by me, posters have stated why they value the woman more or the ZEF more in the past.
what im asking is there anybody that thinks they have a way to ban abortion (make it murder or not, doesnt really matter) and not violate the womans current freedoms, liberties, legal rights and human rights (if you believe in them) including her right to life.
I cant come up with a single way myself nor have i read one. Does one exist? if so please share.
simple question
How does one ban abortion (make it murder) and not violate the woman's current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?
now lets be very clear, im not saying one HAS to do so to justify wanting abortion banned and im not asking for reason why you think its ok to violate a womans current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?
If you think its ok to do so thats your choice and its fine by me, posters have stated why they value the woman more or the ZEF more in the past.
what im asking is there anybody that thinks they have a way to ban abortion (make it murder or not, doesnt really matter) and not violate the womans current freedoms, liberties, legal rights and human rights (if you believe in them) including her right to life.
I cant come up with a single way myself nor have i read one. Does one exist? if so please share.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?