Contumacious
Radical Freedom
☭proletarian☭;1834110 said:Whether she has an agenda or not doesn't matter; it's the validity of the arguments that matters.
True.
Thus far she has advanced no valid arguments.
.
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.
☭proletarian☭;1834110 said:Whether she has an agenda or not doesn't matter; it's the validity of the arguments that matters.
It's better than partial birth, but just because we aren't able to detect brain activity doesn't mean it's not human, or it's not killing a human to destroy it.
Babies didn't used to be able to survive if they were more than 8 weeks premature. Should we have been aborting them up to 7 months then, because technology hadn't caught up with their needs?
I don't believe in the destruction of any human force, regardless of how capable that person is of thinking or communicating to us.
A right to life is not a entitlement to live, or remain alive, in any event or definition you wish to choose.
We can't keep anything alive forever, even if we wanted to, and nothing is entitled to remain alive for any period of time, whatsoever.
It only has the right to "live" as long as IT possibly can, in the environment it resides in.
Children and adults die of starvation all day long.. I hate this bitter truth, but the fact remains- as much as they do have the right to life, if they do not have the means to live, then they simply can not do such a thing.
A right to life is not a entitlement to live, or remain alive, in any event or definition you wish to choose.
Really? Then what is it a right to?
A right to life is not a entitlement to live, or remain alive, in any event or definition you wish to choose.
Really? Then what is it a right to?
Individuals have a right to life and to defend the same. "A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.
That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".
.
"A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.
That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".
☭proletarian☭;1834841 said:Really? Then what is it a right to?
Individuals have a right to life and to defend the same. "A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.
That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".
.
I love this post.
The first point,"A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.
Shoots you and JD right out of the water and destorys your lame attempts to defend killing babies through this thread (and JD's defense of killing a baby so long as the umbilical cord isn't cut). You just aregued that only two of the positions stated in this thread are valid and meet your criterion: Min and that of those who oppose abortion in all instances.
That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".
Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.
INDIVIDUAL not fetus
Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.
We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies,
☭proletarian☭;1833903 said:Who's punishing them, then? God?
Burden and punishment are not equivalent terms. But then, we've yet to see you or JD say anything intelligent, so I'm not surprised by this latest display of stupidity.
☭proletarian☭;1833948 said:Enough about dead babies that grow and are alive cause they grow but aren't alive because they aren't breathing at the momwent and human-dog hybrids (as amusing as JD's little comedy routine was for a short while)...
Does anyone have any objection to this reasoning?
☭proletarian☭;1822994 said:I support abortion up to 6 weeks after conception. This is based on the evidence I've seen which suggests that the regions of the brain which give rise to sentience develop possibly as early as 6-7 weeks after conception. Once this occurs, we are dealing with a sentient mind- a true person. Prior to the emergence of the mind capable of perceiving its own existence and/or the world around it, we are dealing with a living entity that possesses no selfhood. Thus, ending the life of such a creature is fundamentally the same as letting the body of the braindead die- the individual does not exist as such and the tissue itself possesses only sentimental value in its association in our minds with the individual.
This being said, finding information on fetal brain development has been difficult and I remain open to evidence indicating a different timeline.
☭proletarian☭;1822998 said:APPENDIX:I also support abortion as a necessary, if undesirable, option in medical emergencies threaten the life of mother and/or child (it's better to save one life than to allow two to die)
☭proletarian☭;1834000 said:Cuminthetumy, attacking Allie on a personal level does nothing to refute her(?) assertions or strengthen your own arguments.
Can we please have a mature conversation like adults? We got enough childishness from, JD's posts to last the rest of the thread.
Identify the FACTS upon which you rely to conclude that Allie's arguments are pure as the white driven snow. Specifically, that she does not have a hidden agenda.
.
☭proletarian☭;1834110 said:Whether she has an agenda or not doesn't matter; it's the validity of the arguments that matters.
True.
Thus far she has advanced no valid arguments.
.
☭proletarian☭;1834841 said:Individuals have a right to life and to defend the same. "A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.
That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".
.
I love this post.
The first point,
Shoots you and JD right out of the water and destorys your lame attempts to defend killing babies through this thread (and JD's defense of killing a baby so long as the umbilical cord isn't cut). You just aregued that only two of the positions stated in this thread are valid and meet your criterion: Min and that of those who oppose abortion in all instances.
INDIVIDUAL not fetus
That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".
Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.
We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies,
.
If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:
TEN STEPS TO END ABORTION FOREVER -
1. Register every single voter who is anti Abortion.
2. Outlaw every abortion, even ones that put the mothers life in danger, after all, there have been huge advancements in medicine.
3. End all "family planning'.
4. End all education on sex except "abstinence only". Outlaw any mention of disease or contraceptive.
5. Begin a "public option" fund by taxing ONLY voters who registered against abortion rights. That money to be used for prenatal care for women that can't afford such care.
6. Start a lottery. Only those who are registered against abortion rights can play.
7. Winners get to receive brand new babies.
8. Losers have to support a woman and her baby if she wants to keep the baby.
9. "Daily Doubles" get twins.
10. Children must be cared for for 18 years.
If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:
TEN STEPS TO END ABORTION FOREVER -
1. Register every single voter who is anti Abortion.
2. Outlaw every abortion, even ones that put the mothers life in danger, after all, there have been huge advancements in medicine.
3. End all "family planning'.
4. End all education on sex except "abstinence only". Outlaw any mention of disease or contraceptive.
5. Begin a "public option" fund by taxing ONLY voters who registered against abortion rights. That money to be used for prenatal care for women that can't afford such care.
6. Start a lottery. Only those who are registered against abortion rights can play.
7. Winners get to receive brand new babies.
8. Losers have to support a woman and her baby if she wants to keep the baby.
9. "Daily Doubles" get twins.
10. Children must be cared for for 18 years.
We'll be taking your advice on abortion right after I find a man with brain damage to advise me on breastfeeding, okay? Do us all two favors:
1) Save your advice until someone's stupid enough to ask for it, and
2) Hold your breath while you wait for that.
Except the abstinence only part, that part is really stupid. Teenagers have libidos so why would not telling them about contraceptives reduce abortions?
If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:
TEN STEPS TO END ABORTION FOREVER -
1. Register every single voter who is anti Abortion.
2. Outlaw every abortion, even ones that put the mothers life in danger, after all, there have been huge advancements in medicine.
3. End all "family planning'.
4. End all education on sex except "abstinence only". Outlaw any mention of disease or contraceptive.
5. Begin a "public option" fund by taxing ONLY voters who registered against abortion rights. That money to be used for prenatal care for women that can't afford such care.
6. Start a lottery. Only those who are registered against abortion rights can play.
7. Winners get to receive brand new babies.
8. Losers have to support a woman and her baby if she wants to keep the baby.
9. "Daily Doubles" get twins.
10. Children must be cared for for 18 years.
We'll be taking your advice on abortion right after I find a man with brain damage to advise me on breastfeeding, okay? Do us all two favors:
1) Save your advice until someone's stupid enough to ask for it, and
2) Hold your breath while you wait for that.
I'm pretty sure my plan is better than any plan, no pun intended, "conceived" by any conservative. Under my plan, they can put all those "Christian sensibilities" into practice.
☭proletarian☭;1834874 said:A fetus is an individual save in the extenuating circumstances I posted earlier.INDIVIDUAL not fetus
Why do you people have to lie and change your definitions all the time?
A fetus is a child. It's usually the child of the woman carrying it. Hence the phrase 'unborn child'.
wait.. now you're mad about someone being forced to put clothes on a fetus? Once again, you're on your own little world where reality doesn't apply, I see.We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies,Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.