Sometimes the Red Army can be late to the fight, but then show up 6 or 7 weeks later. Some might celebrate, while others are devastated. Point being, the clump of cells is extremely vulnerable to dying off in the first number of weeks, and I don't think it's "intellectually terrible" to question the point at which "life begins".
You don't seem to think it's the egg, but that thing is still packed with tons of DNA and stopping the swimmer from getting to it is still playing god to one extent or another. Saying either it's "life" at the moment of conception, or not life until a human is actually outside the womb, is too absolutist for my taste.
As a pretend philosophizer, let me tell you that viability is amongst the worst and easiest of the abortion arguments to blow up. Unless you think it's ok to kill people who likely have not much time left. Why do you hate Stage 4 pancreatic cancer patients?
Tad poles and red river flowing eggs are easy lines to draw. They happen all the time and nobody cares because they shouldn't. Neither one is anything until it's something.
I didn't say "outside the womb." Don't twist. That's what makes this a hard (it's hard) debate.
Proceed.
I've never taken a course in philosophy and therefore I'm not going to win a pretend philosophy argument with you. Politics should be the art of the possible, and I for one wish both extremes of this debate could agree to meet somewhere in the middle.
Philosophy 102 at UW (logic) was an ass kick to “the art of possible.” Same as Econ 101. Maff & truth.
Trumpanzees here post and link like the monkeys they are. Day of truth is coming...
Sometimes the Red Army can be late to the fight, but then show up 6 or 7 weeks later. Some might celebrate, while others are devastated. Point being, the clump of cells is extremely vulnerable to dying off in the first number of weeks, and I don't think it's "intellectually terrible" to question the point at which "life begins".
You don't seem to think it's the egg, but that thing is still packed with tons of DNA and stopping the swimmer from getting to it is still playing god to one extent or another. Saying either it's "life" at the moment of conception, or not life until a human is actually outside the womb, is too absolutist for my taste.
As a pretend philosophizer, let me tell you that viability is amongst the worst and easiest of the abortion arguments to blow up. Unless you think it's ok to kill people who likely have not much time left. Why do you hate Stage 4 pancreatic cancer patients?
Tad poles and red river flowing eggs are easy lines to draw. They happen all the time and nobody cares because they shouldn't. Neither one is anything until it's something.
I didn't say "outside the womb." Don't twist. That's what makes this a hard (it's hard) debate.
Proceed.
I've never taken a course in philosophy and therefore I'm not going to win a pretend philosophy argument with you. Politics should be the art of the possible, and I for one wish both extremes of this debate could agree to meet somewhere in the middle.
first, I see what you did there.
yeah, sure. but when you are talking about drawing the lines based on "personhood", as it were, it's a heavy issue and shouldn't be left to "state rights" (hello Antonin - is it hot down there?) or popular opinion (sledog and salemkewg are part of and in 'popular opinion' fyi).
it's one of those things like when you argue that Plato's pilot (or philosopher king, to be more precise) should land the plane; not the guy the other passengers vote to do it.
Sometimes the Red Army can be late to the fight, but then show up 6 or 7 weeks later. Some might celebrate, while others are devastated. Point being, the clump of cells is extremely vulnerable to dying off in the first number of weeks, and I don't think it's "intellectually terrible" to question the point at which "life begins".
You don't seem to think it's the egg, but that thing is still packed with tons of DNA and stopping the swimmer from getting to it is still playing god to one extent or another. Saying either it's "life" at the moment of conception, or not life until a human is actually outside the womb, is too absolutist for my taste.
As a pretend philosophizer, let me tell you that viability is amongst the worst and easiest of the abortion arguments to blow up. Unless you think it's ok to kill people who likely have not much time left. Why do you hate Stage 4 pancreatic cancer patients?
Tad poles and red river flowing eggs are easy lines to draw. They happen all the time and nobody cares because they shouldn't. Neither one is anything until it's something.
I didn't say "outside the womb." Don't twist. That's what makes this a hard (it's hard) debate.
Proceed.
I've never taken a course in philosophy and therefore I'm not going to win a pretend philosophy argument with you. Politics should be the art of the possible, and I for one wish both extremes of this debate could agree to meet somewhere in the middle.
Philosophy 102 at UW (logic) was an ass kick to “the art of possible.” Same as Econ 101. Maff & truth.
Trumpanzees here post and link like the monkeys they are. Day of truth is coming...
Sometimes the Red Army can be late to the fight, but then show up 6 or 7 weeks later. Some might celebrate, while others are devastated. Point being, the clump of cells is extremely vulnerable to dying off in the first number of weeks, and I don't think it's "intellectually terrible" to question the point at which "life begins".
You don't seem to think it's the egg, but that thing is still packed with tons of DNA and stopping the swimmer from getting to it is still playing god to one extent or another. Saying either it's "life" at the moment of conception, or not life until a human is actually outside the womb, is too absolutist for my taste.
As a pretend philosophizer, let me tell you that viability is amongst the worst and easiest of the abortion arguments to blow up. Unless you think it's ok to kill people who likely have not much time left. Why do you hate Stage 4 pancreatic cancer patients?
Tad poles and red river flowing eggs are easy lines to draw. They happen all the time and nobody cares because they shouldn't. Neither one is anything until it's something.
I didn't say "outside the womb." Don't twist. That's what makes this a hard (it's hard) debate.
Proceed.
I've never taken a course in philosophy and therefore I'm not going to win a pretend philosophy argument with you. Politics should be the art of the possible, and I for one wish both extremes of this debate could agree to meet somewhere in the middle.
Philosophy 102 at UW (logic) was an ass kick to “the art of possible.” Same as Econ 101. Maff & truth.
Trumpanzees here post and link like the monkeys they are. Day of truth is coming...
That same kraut who talked about politics being the are of the possible, also said "God has a speshial providence for fools, drunkards, and the United State of America" meaning we've often succeeded BIGLY as a country in spite of our collective fucktardedness.
Query for the Boreds: If a thread titled "Abortion" can get 5 pages of comments, how many pages of comments would a thread titled "Masturbation" produce?
Query for the Boreds: If a thread titled "Abortion" can get 5 pages of comments, how many pages of comments would a thread titled "Masturbation" produce?
You knew here? Thread? The fuck?
We have an entire bored dedicated to masturbation. It does well. Even without any help from @MikeSeaver.
Query for the Boreds: If a thread titled "Abortion" can get 5 pages of comments, how many pages of comments would a thread titled "Masturbation" produce?
You knew here? Thread? The fuck?
We have an entire bored dedicated to masturbation. It does well. Even without any help from @MikeSeaver.
speaking of that bleeding little vag, where is our resident dip shit duck? he's been conspicuously absent since his last ass reaming.
Sometimes the Red Army can be late to the fight, but then show up 6 or 7 weeks later. Some might celebrate, while others are devastated. Point being, the clump of cells is extremely vulnerable to dying off in the first number of weeks, and I don't think it's "intellectually terrible" to question the point at which "life begins".
You don't seem to think it's the egg, but that thing is still packed with tons of DNA and stopping the swimmer from getting to it is still playing god to one extent or another. Saying either it's "life" at the moment of conception, or not life until a human is actually outside the womb, is too absolutist for my taste.
As a pretend philosophizer, let me tell you that viability is amongst the worst and easiest of the abortion arguments to blow up. Unless you think it's ok to kill people who likely have not much time left. Why do you hate Stage 4 pancreatic cancer patients?
Tad poles and red river flowing eggs are easy lines to draw. They happen all the time and nobody cares because they shouldn't. Neither one is anything until it's something.
I didn't say "outside the womb." Don't twist. That's what makes this a hard (it's hard) debate.
Proceed.
I've never taken a course in philosophy and therefore I'm not going to win a pretend philosophy argument with you. Politics should be the art of the possible, and I for one wish both extremes of this debate could agree to meet somewhere in the middle.
first, I see what you did there.
yeah, sure. but when you are talking about drawing the lines based on "personhood", as it were, it's a heavy issue and shouldn't be left to "state rights" (hello Antonin - is it hot down there?) or popular opinion (sledog and salemkewg are part of and in 'popular opinion' fyi).
it's one of those things like when you argue that Plato's pilot (or philosopher king, to be more precise) should land the plane; not the guy the other passengers vote to do it.
From a pretend philosophical argument, I fully appreciate your argument- i.e., it's either taking human life or it's not, and that it's a lot different than, say, compromising on something like tax policy. All that said, I like my intellectually terrible compromise.
Sometimes the Red Army can be late to the fight, but then show up 6 or 7 weeks later. Some might celebrate, while others are devastated. Point being, the clump of cells is extremely vulnerable to dying off in the first number of weeks, and I don't think it's "intellectually terrible" to question the point at which "life begins".
You don't seem to think it's the egg, but that thing is still packed with tons of DNA and stopping the swimmer from getting to it is still playing god to one extent or another. Saying either it's "life" at the moment of conception, or not life until a human is actually outside the womb, is too absolutist for my taste.
As a pretend philosophizer, let me tell you that viability is amongst the worst and easiest of the abortion arguments to blow up. Unless you think it's ok to kill people who likely have not much time left. Why do you hate Stage 4 pancreatic cancer patients?
Tad poles and red river flowing eggs are easy lines to draw. They happen all the time and nobody cares because they shouldn't. Neither one is anything until it's something.
I didn't say "outside the womb." Don't twist. That's what makes this a hard (it's hard) debate.
Proceed.
I've never taken a course in philosophy and therefore I'm not going to win a pretend philosophy argument with you. Politics should be the art of the possible, and I for one wish both extremes of this debate could agree to meet somewhere in the middle.
first, I see what you did there.
yeah, sure. but when you are talking about drawing the lines based on "personhood", as it were, it's a heavy issue and shouldn't be left to "state rights" (hello Antonin - is it hot down there?) or popular opinion (sledog and salemkewg are part of and in 'popular opinion' fyi).
it's one of those things like when you argue that Plato's pilot (or philosopher king, to be more precise) should land the plane; not the guy the other passengers vote to do it.
From a pretend philosophical argument, I fully appreciate your argument- i.e., it's either taking human life or it's not, and that it's a lot different than, say, compromising on something like tax policy. All that said, I like my intellectually terrible compromise.
It's turrible. Just turrible.
You sir, are no longer invited to join the club of the philosopher kings. Invitation revoked.
PS: my main poont in exploring the boundaries is this: if you claim it to be the moral equivalent of your and my life, then you have some uncomfortable, if not nasty, consequences that most people don't think about:
- fuck you if you believe that and you are not making it your #1 issue, if not physically going antifa over it and intervening directly if the gub won't; there are things that are that important that you have to override the state (think Nazi Germany and "going along"); and
- even in the cases of rape and threat to the mother's life, there can be no justification for abortion; we don't kill real innocent people routinely to save other people, no matter the fairness or lack thereof.
One thing is for sure: it doesn't have shit to do with privacy or "my body". Those arguments are even worse than your viability shit. I can take those apart and play chess with Salemkewg at the same time. Actually I can do anything and play chess with Salem at the same tim.
God damn it you witness trapping, pretend-lawyer, SOB. If it's a binary choice, then I am, and remain "pro-choice". I don't think there is a moral equivalence between snuffing out a 3 year old and a 6 week old embryo. And if I have to be ok with snuffing out a 20 week old fetus to preserve the right of a mom to abort a 6 week old one, then so be it.
God damn it you witness trapping, pretend-lawyer, SOB. If it's a binary choice, then I am, and remain "pro-choice". I don't think there is a moral equivalence between snuffing out a 3 year old and a 6 week old embryo. And if I have to be ok with snuffing out a 20 week old fetus to preserve the right of a mom to abort a 6 week old one, then so be it.
God damn it you witness trapping, pretend-lawyer, SOB. If it's a binary choice, then I am, and remain "pro-choice". I don't think there is a moral equivalence between snuffing out a 3 year old and a 6 week old embryo. And if I have to be ok with snuffing out a 20 week old fetus to preserve the right of a mom to abort a 6 week old one, then so be it.
God damn it you witness trapping, pretend-lawyer, SOB. If it's a binary choice, then I am, and remain "pro-choice". I don't think there is a moral equivalence between snuffing out a 3 year old and a 6 week old embryo. And if I have to be ok with snuffing out a 20 week old fetus to preserve the right of a mom to abort a 6 week old one, then so be it.
Bingo. You're back in.
Dood: you don't want to be Fredo. Remember the rest of the story.
God damn it you witness trapping, pretend-lawyer, SOB. If it's a binary choice, then I am, and remain "pro-choice". I don't think there is a moral equivalence between snuffing out a 3 year old and a 6 week old embryo. And if I have to be ok with snuffing out a 20 week old fetus to preserve the right of a mom to abort a 6 week old one, then so be it.
Bingo. You're back in.
Dood: you don't want to be Fredo. Remember the rest of the story.
That's the poont. I'm "back in" only to get whacked at a later date.
God damn it you witness trapping, pretend-lawyer, SOB. If it's a binary choice, then I am, and remain "pro-choice". I don't think there is a moral equivalence between snuffing out a 3 year old and a 6 week old embryo. And if I have to be ok with snuffing out a 20 week old fetus to preserve the right of a mom to abort a 6 week old one, then so be it.
Bingo. You're back in.
Dood: you don't want to be Fredo. Remember the rest of the story.
That's the poont. I'm "back in" only to get whacked at a later date.
Fredo you're my older brother, and I love you. But don't ever takes sides with anyone against the Family again. Evah.
PS: my main poont in exploring the boundaries is this: if you claim it to be the moral equivalent of your and my life, then you have some uncomfortable, if not nasty, consequences that most people don't think about:
- fuck you if you believe that and you are not making it your #1 issue, if not physically going antifa over it and intervening directly if the gub won't; there are things that are that important that you have to override the state (think Nazi Germany and "going along"); and
- even in the cases of rape and threat to the mother's life, there can be no justification for abortion; we don't kill real innocent people routinely to save other people, no matter the fairness or lack thereof.
One thing is for sure: it doesn't have shit to do with privacy or "my body". Those arguments are even worse than your viability shit. I can take those apart and play chess with Salemkewg at the same time. Actually I can do anything and play chess with Salem at the same tim.
PS: my main poont in exploring the boundaries is this: if you claim it to be the moral equivalent of your and my life, then you have some uncomfortable, if not nasty, consequences that most people don't think about:
- fuck you if you believe that and you are not making it your #1 issue, if not physically going antifa over it and intervening directly if the gub won't; there are things that are that important that you have to override the state (think Nazi Germany and "going along"); and
- even in the cases of rape and threat to the mother's life, there can be no justification for abortion; we don't kill real innocent people routinely to save other people, no matter the fairness or lack thereof.
One thing is for sure: it doesn't have shit to do with privacy or "my body". Those arguments are even worse than your viability shit. I can take those apart and play chess with Salemkewg at the same time. Actually I can do anything and play chess with Salem at the same tim.
Query for the Boreds: If a thread titled "Abortion" can get 5 pages of comments, how many pages of comments would a thread titled "Masturbation" produce?
You knew here? Thread? The fuck?
We have an entire bored dedicated to masturbation. It does well. Even without any help from @MikeSeaver.
If you are against abortion you should be in favor of cheap and easily accessible birth control. If you support abstinence only education you are retarded.
Contraceptives are cheap and easy to attain. They just need not be given out to HS students. However should be available at bars like a breath mint.
HS students are the exact demographic that should have free access to birth control.
If said HS student is emancipated and lives on their own... sure.gif.
But if said HS student is under 18 and lives at home with their parents, It's the parents choice. Not the school's, not the government, not liberal fucktard that should make the decision to give little Johnny his rubbers or slutty Brittney her BC pills.
That's not to say that I didn't fully support slutty Brittney and her breathren back in the day. But this little Johnny had his rubbers.
Luckily in most states, parents already have no say in whether or not a kid wants to get birth control.
I'm sure involuntary celibacy worked wonders for you in high school, but it doesn't apply to everyone.
IT's not about celibacy. And it's not about whether they should have birth control. When you boinkin' you should. It's about who makes that decision and the parent guardian relationship. I will backtrack a bit on the rubbers thing. I wouldn't be so opposed to those being passed out in schools. However the family doctor should be the one prescribing bc pills to the girls. Not the school "nurse" who couldn't get a job at the free clinic
Fair enough, and I wasn't calling for the school to be in charge of birth control prescriptions. Planned Parenthood does a good job of offering free birth control to teens that don't have insurance.
Kids in high school are going to have sex with or without their parents permission. I prefer them not to get pregnant.
Yes. I have been absolutely floored by the number of parents in my social circle who are so in the fucking dark about this. Especially the parents of the over-achieving crowd. Sorry, they fuck as much, or more, as the slackers.
One of the first things you have to get your head around is that your teen-age kid will (1) lie to you, (2) fuck and (3) lie to you. Even the good kids. Some are more adept at all three than others, but inevitably, they do what they do and they are really good at hiding it.
Best to be out in the open and help them to not be stupid.
Comments
Trumpanzees here post and link like the monkeys they are. Day of truth is coming...
yeah, sure. but when you are talking about drawing the lines based on "personhood", as it were, it's a heavy issue and shouldn't be left to "state rights" (hello Antonin - is it hot down there?) or popular opinion (sledog and salemkewg are part of and in 'popular opinion' fyi).
it's one of those things like when you argue that Plato's pilot (or philosopher king, to be more precise) should land the plane; not the guy the other passengers vote to do it.
We have an entire bored dedicated to masturbation. It does well. Even without any help from @MikeSeaver.
You sir, are no longer invited to join the club of the philosopher kings. Invitation revoked.
It's too bad. You had potential.
- fuck you if you believe that and you are not making it your #1 issue, if not physically going antifa over it and intervening directly if the gub won't; there are things that are that important that you have to override the state (think Nazi Germany and "going along"); and
- even in the cases of rape and threat to the mother's life, there can be no justification for abortion; we don't kill real innocent people routinely to save other people, no matter the fairness or lack thereof.
One thing is for sure: it doesn't have shit to do with privacy or "my body". Those arguments are even worse than your viability shit. I can take those apart and play chess with Salemkewg at the same time. Actually I can do anything and play chess with Salem at the same tim.
Again: invitation revoked. I had high hopes.