PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #141
First, having a right to life does not usurp other rights. Simply because I have a right to life does not mean I have a right to use your body against your will to make my viable.
ROFL...
So do I understand that what you're saying is the embryo has hijacked the woman's body and presumably without her consent? Now I suppose this is true for that rarest of all prenatal scenarios: The Immaculate Conception.
But in the case where the woman has knowingly and willfully engaged in sexual intercourse, then she has chosen to engage in the behavior which nature has designed specifically for procreation... thus the woman is 100% responsible for that human life having been conceived; thus the pre-born human growing inside her body is a result of HER CHOOSING... therefore Scooter, there is no hijacking of the woman's body; therefore no violation of the woman's rights by the pre-born human who is growing inside her body; therefore that pre-born human being is as entitled to their life as the Mother is hers AND the mother is at that point 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR DEFENDING HER OWN LIFE AND THE LIFE OF THE LIFE SHE HAS CONCEIVED THROUGH HER HAVING CHOSEN TO ENGAGE IN THE ACTIVITY WHICH NATURE HAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR PROCREATION.
You're simply wanting to excuse her for her CHOICE to engage in Sexual intercourse and to relieve her of her responsibilities which are resultant of that CHOICE by advocating for the FALSE CHOICE OF STRIPPING AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE OF ITS RIGHTS.
The premise of your position, here is thoroughly absurd...
Second, what are the federal statutes concerning the killing of a child lethal injection? Rule of Law has no meaning unless it is enforceable. Do you really think society would just stand by while you strapped little Suzie to a gurney and stuck needles in her arm? I dont think so.
Ahh... so the principle of inalienable human rights, particularly the human right to life and the rigt to pursue the fulfillment of that life is invalidated when a sufficient volume of people feel that the right is a drag on their booty calls... So what you're saying is that when a principle is being rejected by a sufficient volume of the population... or where a sufficient volume of the population is ignorant of a given principle, then that principle is no longer culturally viable...
That is fascinating... I wonder if you'd be interested in expanding on this notion? Does it translate to other human rights? I mean if it doesnt slow the easy pussy down, is this notion youre projecting still something on which you could still get on board
What is hilarious to me is that you're absolutely, or at least you're projecting that you're absolutely ignorant of the idiocy on which this notion of yours is based.
You seem to be saying that because a sufficient percentage of the population is of a given opinion that a segment of that population can be stripped of their rights. In fact, what I hear you saying is that the rights of a human being can be determined to be declared null and void based upon a cultural popularity.
So... then you're saying that black slavery was perfectly moral and a suitable means of commerce when it was popular... and that had the culture not been swayed by the understanding that black people are in fact human beings and because of this unavoidable fact, that they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, not the least of which is the right to their life and the pursuit of the fulfillment of that life, which includes enjoying the fruits of their own labor... that there would be absolutely nothing wrong with the practice of enslaving black people today, if there were simply a sufficient percentage of the population which 'believed' or 'were of the opinion' that such is acceptable because 'everyone does it' or 'because it is so common that it would be otherwise impossible to enforce?? Is this board to believe that you'd be in here proclaiming the enslavement of the black man and woman is acceptable because to make it not acceptable would require the culture to prosecute too many people?
Do you not understand that the principle that your driving at here advocates the notion 'that because a practice which violates the rights of a human being is legal; because the violation is quite common and the numbers of innocent humans being deprived of their life so enormous... that it would be difficult to enforce a prohibition of the practice, thus any discussion which highlights the immorality of murdering innocent life should be dismissed?
ROFLMNAO Sweet Mother, you people are some dangerously ignorant fucks
So even if you could piss all over the constitution it would seem society wouldnt tolerate it. You have a dilemma dont you .
Tell you what Skippy I will send you a cashiers check for $10,000 if you can show me where in the US Constitution it provides for a citizen of the United States to take a human life when that human life is determined to be inconvenience to that citizen... Hell Ill do the same if you can show where a citizen can be held blameless for the ramifications of their behavior, where and when their behavior results in the intentional taking of an innocent human life. Now go knock yourself out
That you even BELIEVE that there is something, ANYTHING in the USC which provides you the right to conceive life only to rip it from its inherent right to that life is something well beyond pathetic. That you're able to get within 10 miles of a voting booth is criminally immoral; you're ignorance is positively astounding.
Beyond all that, there is no dilemma; a woman has a right to choose, when, where and with whom she engages in sexual intercourse. Without regard to the specious decision coming out of Roe, there is NO right to take a human life without a valid moral justification and without question, those who knowingly take a human life without valid moral justification should be tried on the facts surrounding the killing of that human life and where the evidence shows that the individuals that participated, did so knowingly, intentionally, the evidence will have established that they have in fact forfeited their own rights and should be sentenced for their capital crime... 25 to life, execution... it varies from state to state...
And I seriously doubt there'd be more than a few thousand prosecutions for abortion throughout the US... I expect that when tens of millions of horny teenagers and twenty somethings begin to watch dozens of desperate, terrified teenagers and twenty something females (along with their boyfriends and Doctors) going to prison for a large chunk of their life or being executed, that this would have a tendency to dry up the easy pussy; which there can be NO DOUBT that if we could peel away the layers of rationalizations which youve used to come up with the above inanity, we'd find that THAT is all you're concerned with here... a means to rationalize the easy, supremely casual sex...
Sadly, (For you) the humans right to their life, trump your 'needs,' playeh...