Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'll pass.
FT, one wonders if you award the present of "persondom" to those who are disabled, diminished capacity, or ugly?
Do we get to kill all those we find offensive? Because I have a list.....
Oh, no, it didn't fly over my head. However, my application did over yours..so I will dumb it down even more for you in the future.
It will be difficult, but I'm pretty sure I'm up for the task.
kalam I wonder how do you feel about the morning after pill?
I'll pass.
FT, one wonders if you award the present of "persondom" to those who are disabled, diminished capacity, or ugly?
Do we get to kill all those we find offensive? Because I have a list.....
... That's the dumbest straw man I've ever heard. How the fuck can you possibly be offended at a fetus which can barely express itself (if at all)?
And please do me a favor and don't use PC jargon. I honestly have no idea what person of diminished capacity means. Retarded? Handicapped? Midget?
I'll pass.
FT, one wonders if you award the present of "persondom" to those who are disabled, diminished capacity, or ugly?
Do we get to kill all those we find offensive? Because I have a list.....
... That's the dumbest straw man I've ever heard. How the fuck can you possibly be offended at a fetus which can barely express itself (if at all)?
And please do me a favor and don't use PC jargon. I honestly have no idea what person of diminished capacity means. Retarded? Handicapped? Midget?
Wow. Your intelligence blows me away. Whether or not it's PC jargon, it's pretty self-explanatory, and it's the recognized term among people who actually deal with those people.
And you proved my point. If a person doesn't have the capacity to offend, they don't really exist.
Oh, no, it didn't fly over my head. However, my application did over yours..so I will dumb it down even more for you in the future.
It will be difficult, but I'm pretty sure I'm up for the task.
I have the utmost confidence in your ability to make things dumber.
... That's the dumbest straw man I've ever heard. How the fuck can you possibly be offended at a fetus which can barely express itself (if at all)?
And please do me a favor and don't use PC jargon. I honestly have no idea what person of diminished capacity means. Retarded? Handicapped? Midget?
Wow. Your intelligence blows me away. Whether or not it's PC jargon, it's pretty self-explanatory, and it's the recognized term among people who actually deal with those people.
And you proved my point. If a person doesn't have the capacity to offend, they don't really exist.
Where the hell did I say that they don't exist? All I said was they can't be offensive nothing more.
And no person of diminished capacity is not self-explanatory, like all PC crap it's vague. It can easily apply to the retarded, the cripples, or to midgets.
So can you tell me what it means in lay-mans terms.
No just your idiotic claim that keeping abortion legal is somehow forcing morality onto people since they don't have to actually get one nor do they have to concern themselves with people who do.
What you fail to grasp is that the arguments for abortion- 'forcing' a woman to bear a child, an 'invasion of her body', restricting 'her right to choose' are moral arguments. They are arguing from their morality, same as the other side. Just ask them why it is 'good' to 'protect' her 'right to choose' or why 'violating' her body or 'infringing her rights' is 'bad'.
Clearly you're not smart enough to see that, so I'll thank you to excuse yourself from intelligent discussion.
Quit trying to change their subject.
I'm not the one who brought it upI was refuting your bone-headed idea that legalized abortion somehow forces morality onto those who don't like it.
If it's legal you can still follow the idea that it's wrong and immoral and choose to not do it
, same as pornography, or racist jokes. Nobody's forcing your hand nor forcing you to live with the mentality that abortion's ok
FETUSES CANNOT CONSENT.
Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how many milliseconds into the pregnancy this somehow goes from justifiable to unjustifiable and how you reached this conclusion.Although the whole reason for responding to you was the whole dumb idea that pro-choicers are somehow forcing morality onto you by keeping abortion illegal.
And no person of diminished capacity is not self-explanatory, like all PC crap it's vague.
It is in that it forces others to bend to their morality and surrender their own. The abortion industry and their useful idiots (eg: neofeminists) try to force others to accept the described leftist moral arguments and legislate them, while forcing others to surrender their own moral, ethical, and legal arguments for protecting human life.
Wrong. If one considered the protection of life moral, then one cannot act on one'
s morality; instead, one must end to the amorality of the libertines.
This 'noone's forcing you to do it' argument is bullshit and has already shwn to be such. Replace 'abortion' with rape, murder, theft, or just about anything else and you'll realize that is, ljust like 'making it illegal won't stop it' is actually an argument borrowed wholesale from anarchist ideology- and which support only anarchist philosophies when their logical implications are followed..
Interesting. You said that homicide and the taking of another's things are unjustifuiable without consent and unjustifiable without it. This is the same argument that says sex with a consenting woman is okay and sex with an non-consenting woman is not. So, the inverse- that sex, the taking of property, and the ending of life without such consent is unjustifiable- must al;so apply to, well, the ending of life. (Very redundant, but apparently things must be explained to you as though you were a child.)
Now, since you say that a child cannot give consent, that means that sex with a child and the ending of a child's life are unjustifiable (see the above). Yes you cite the child's inability to consent as evidence that ending the child's life is somehow justifiable?
Although the whole reason for responding to you was the whole dumb idea that pro-choicers are somehow forcing morality onto you by keeping abortion illegal.
Wait, so no 'pro-choicers' want to keep abortion illegal? You are confused, aren't you?
And no person of diminished capacity is not self-explanatory, like all PC crap it's vague.
Really? it seems to be pretty well understood when it comes to matters of law
Live with the consequences instead of destroying a potential life.
Abortion should obviously be an option in cases of rape or serious threats to the mother's health.
It's not legislating morality, it's a lack of legislation.
By itself it's worthless and bullshit. But couple it with 'and it doesn't effect you in any significant way' and that's your reason.
Actually, you did. It was you who set consent as the standard by which homicide can be deemed justifiable (interesting that you don't consider self-defense to be justifiable){Y}ou demanded consent from a fetus, I told you that it cannot be done.
It's not legislating morality, it's a lack of legislation.
Actually, it's more legislation. Willful homicide outside of self-defense, war, and similar extenuating circumstances is already illegal. By definition, this would include the unborn by simple logical extrapalation of its implications; for the abortion industry to survive required a legal ruling that added law by making an exception for killers who killed only their own children, did so quickly enough, and who of a certain sex.
By itself it's worthless and bullshit. But couple it with 'and it doesn't effect you in any significant way' and that's your reason.
If I kill you, it has no effect on my neighbor. If I find a lone shut-in and burn her to death, it effects noone. You are effectively arguing that one's right to life and legal protection thereof it is dependent upon how many friends and family members one has who will mourn their loss; of course, you ignore the father, who must stand by while his child is killed and has no legal means of stopping it.
You fail to extrapolate the logical implications of your arguments. That is why your ideology is so contradictory and inconsistent.
Actually, you did. It was you who set consent as the standard by which homicide can be deemed justifiable (interesting that you don't consider self-defense to be justifiable){Y}ou demanded consent from a fetus, I told you that it cannot be done.
