- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 120,147
- Reaction score
- 76,178
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So is a sex change. Also abnormal.
Good to see you guys defending Kavanaugh! I knew that fiasco was all BS. Course the next justice may not be so sure and if Kav changes his mind....kiss your abortion clinics goodbye.
There are lots of risks in life and none of them justify killing an innocent human being. If the risk is so great, don’t get pregnant.
War is when diplomacy has failed. Equating abortion to war is stupid. In any other situation, no. There is one and only one standard for the use of deadly force. It’s not for convenience. It’s not because there is risk.
Objection noted.There is no evidence of that contract in any way being...
Point noted. Relevance to topic at hand or the price of rice in China not understood, but point noted.And to address this separately, many prochoicers are prolife personally and help others who are valued members of society already, just as many prolifers do.
I'm sure it won't surprise you that I consider the argumentMy post did not designate who that other would or should be, only that once born, anyone else is able to take on the burden of someone else, not a single person.
However, for pro-lifers who would argue to criminalize it, your appeal to an organ donation analogy here will fail for two reasons. The first is the issue of permissive versus commissive acts already mentioned. The second is that virtually all pro-lifers (myself included) regard conceiving a child as the signing of an unbreakable contract obligating parental responsibilities to that child. By engaging in procreative sexual intercourse, both male and female parties are signing a sacred contract stating, "I do hereby swear to care for any offspring of this sexual union and fulfill the responsibilities of my role as parent." There is no analog to this in organ donation. Or, for that matter, in caring for other people's children.
You can argue there is no such contract, the state has no right to enforce such a contract, etc., and so be it. I'm not going to butt heads with you over it. My point is that virtually all pro-lifers consider such a contract to be extant and enforceable by law, and can reasonably reject organ donation / foster care analogies on this basis alone. This is also why some pro-lifers tolerate abortion in the case of rape--because a woman subjected to rape has not signed this contract by consenting to procreative sex.
ab•nor•mal*ăb-nôr′məl
►
adj.
Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal;
R.I.F people
Yes. Good job.
Being abnormal can be a great thing
Sure. Hitler was abnormal as well.
Agreed on all points.The problem with this contract is that it is fundamentally unenforceable. There is no way to compel a woman to be a loving and responsible parent. You can perhaps compel her to be financially liable. But that is not the same thing.
I am letting her abort. I'm pleading with her not to. I'm trying to clean out the garbage pro-choice dogmatists have shoved into her mind, telling her life will be hell if she raises a child, telling her a foetus isn't a child anyway, telling her abortion is just like having a tumour removed. I'm begging her not to kill her offspring.It is better to never be born at all than to come into a world that does not want or care for you. So let the woman abort. For the sake of the child who will never be.
as applicable to the disposing of infants, the disabled, the infirm, and anyone else who's unloved, not an "asset to society" (as @Lursa puts it), and extremely burdensome to the person with a sacred responsibility to take care of them.
Agreed on all points.
I am letting her abort. I'm pleading with her not to. I'm trying to clean out the garbage pro-choice dogmatists have shoved into her mind, telling her life will be hell if she raises a child, telling her a foetus isn't a child anyway, telling her abortion is just like having a tumour removed. I'm begging her not to kill her offspring.
What truly disturbs me about your comment is that--notwithstanding @roguenuke's absurd rationalizations (see #355)--it's just as applicable to the disposing of infants, the disabled, the infirm, and anyone else who's unloved, not an "asset to society" (as @Lursa puts it), and extremely burdensome to the person with a sacred responsibility to take care of them.
I sometimes wonder if we'll eventually cross the line where the 'kind-hearted' progressives of the world, beholding the burden faced by parents and caretakers, decrying it as 'suffering' and 'slavery' for the parents and 'far better' for the burdensome soul to be put to sleep than endure life in "a world that does not want or care for [them]", acknowledge that @roguenuke's rationale is illogical garbage and decide the right to dispatch these 'unloveds' is 'social justice'.
I doubt few people currently over age 30 would ever support this (I hope I'm not wrong). But we're dying off. Given enough time, we'll all be conservative 'pro-lifers', only begging people not to dispatch their dependents outside the womb as well as in.
So... fancy that. I'm actually grateful more people don't realize @roguenuke's rationale is BS. Because if/when they do and that cognitive dissonance hits, I guarantee you it's not going to be resolved by pro-lifers conceding abortion is murder.
You have a tendency to try to reduce others arguments to something other than what was stated and wrongfully state them as something different. As well as to simply dismiss those that you dont like, as if you are some sort of queen or ultimate authority.Objection noted.
Point noted. Relevance to topic at hand or the price of rice in China not understood, but point noted.
I'm sure it won't surprise you that I consider the argument
infants, the infirm, etc. would be disposable in the same way as unborn children except that they can be offloaded onto some compassionate soul (or possibly the government), which is sufficient reason not to dispose of them
every bit as illogical and absurd as
infants, the infirm, etc. would be disposable in the same way as unborn children except that they can be offloaded onto pro-lifers (or possibly the government), which is sufficient reason not to dispose of them
but, FWIW, point noted.
Where your argument fails is that these women who choose abortion my not have the same philosophy as you do.
Philosophically, many believe that it is a POTENTIAL human being.
You seem to view the zygote, embryo, or fetus as what should be a person - a legal designation. Can you imagine how our country would work if a ZEF was a legal person....
Now is a ZEF human? Sure, of course.
Zefs are not human beings/people. FACT.
Pregnancy/childbirth kills far more human beings than legal abortion. FACT.
We do it all the time...to justify gun use for self defense, to calculate bombing runs and civilian deaths, to determine the likelihood a brain injured person will recover or pull the plug, in finding the balance between the cost of seat belts on school buses and kid's lives....so I dont see you successfully challenging my arguments with this point at all then.
I also said generalize. You were tying to use your statistics in too broad a manner. Didnt work.
The risk of injury to the woman is low. If she or her partner have regrets, research has shown it is short-lived and in the long run most believe it was the right decision.
So, it really doesnt harm any "actual people." If you means society, there are no negative effects of abortion on society. If there are, please list them.
The risk is irrelevant. There is also little risk in me murdering my wife in her sleep. If I got regrets research has shown it’s short lived and in the long run most believe it was the right decisions.
The unborn is an actual person. Killing someone is the ultimate harm. Killing people harms society.
Dishonest? You refused to answer the question. You tried to turn it around on me as obvious :roll: That's BS. Where is the blue bold guaranteed to anyone in the Const? And then show me where the unborn has a right to life recognized *anywhere* in the Const? Not only that, the high courts have examined the unborn more than once, interpreting that Const, and not recognized them as equal or having any rights.
So dont act like it's obvious. But feel free to tell me what authority *does* recognize a right to life for the unborn.
Yes dishonest. And you double down. There is no question you have asked I have refused answer.
The 14th Amendment does not distinguish between the born and unborn.
The high courts also examined and didn’t recognize black people as equal or having any rights.
You once again avoided answering a direct question so I wont answer yours until you do. Just because you value emptiness, nothingness, it's ludicrous to expect others to have to do so and you cant even articulate why. :roll: Your reasons are all 'feelings' and emotions that you'd see forced on "innocent" women for doing nothing wrong.
You are once again lying because you don’t like the answer. But it’s still and answer regardless if you can’t be honest or not.
I’ve never stated I value emptiness, nor nothingness. Nor have I stated other should. It’s a straight up lie.
The woman choice to have sex. She is not innocent. Killing another human for convenience is wrong.
You should try to use words properly in a debate...consensual sex, pregnancy...not bad, not evil, not wrong. So how can there be any guilt attached? That's your personal hangup, nothing to force on other Americans.
If I improperly used words, show so. I never said consensual sex or pregnancy was bad or evil or wrong. I never said there was guilt attached to consensual sex, nor pregnancy. I have never expressed a ‘hang up’ with any of that.
Then you admit to being incapable of assimilating medical and biological facts. And not being capable of using accurate information in a discussion and being wholly driven by dogma and emotions. Understood.
And it's also not moral to reduce the entirety of any person's life to a string of conveniences. A woman's life, her health, her ability to care for her family/dependents, keep them safe and fed, to uphold her obligations and commitments to friends, employer, church, community, society, etc...totally immoral in the dishonesty of it.
Unless you consider your own life a string of conveniences? Do you?
Where did I admit this? The only medical and biological fact I have discussed is the unborn is a living human being. How is that inaccurate?
Killing a human being for convenience is wholly driven by dogma and emotions.
I find it immoral to reduce a persons life to a clump of cells.
I don’t consider anyone’s life a string of conveniences.
OK. So?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
According to you they dont justify killing others. Others disagree.
And the greatness of the risk is not for you determine nor if the risk of pregnancy cannot be countered by deciding to have an abortion.
Just as you dont get to tell people they dont get to risk other peoples lives by not being the best drivers, being potentially nervous about driving. I've heard people argue this and it is just as ridiculous as saying "dont get pregnant". It is impractical.
And there are other situations where even in America you can kill innocent people legally. It all depends on the circumstances.
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
I got zero problems with killing a human being that is inside another human being for any reason at all. Completely moral
I got zero problem with killing a human being that kills innocent human beings. Completely moral.
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?