Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Baby Killer is upset ... and still doesn't understand the quote function.
I threw out a scenario and I'm a baby killer. Totally unhinged...
Meltdown incoming.
There's no meltdown. Nobody can agree on when life starts. That's why I don't usually get involved in abortion discussions. There are lunatics who think it's fine to abort newborns or 38 weekers and there are pro life nuts such as yourself who follow anachronistic religious dogma.
Incorrect. Many of us (clear thinking and moral) folks know and agree it begins at conception. Prior to that very significant moment, you have two meaningless clump of cells. Basic biology Bill. Only social engineers make it complicated.
If people don't want a kid prevention is a far better solution than abortion. Abortion is now used as birth control. That ain't right in my book and if it is in yours you might want to take a deep look at yourself.
If people don't want a kid prevention is a far better solution than abortion. Abortion is now used as birth control. That ain't right in my book and if it is in yours you might want to take a deep look at yourself.
Sleddy gets it.
Also, Cum-and-run Baby Daddies - yeah I'm looking at you. You're in Creepy's crosshairs now.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
Baby Killer is upset ... and still doesn't understand the quote function.
I threw out a scenario and I'm a baby killer. Totally unhinged...
Meltdown incoming.
There's no meltdown. Nobody can agree on when life starts. That's why I don't usually get involved in abortion discussions. There are lunatics who think it's fine to abort newborns or 38 weekers and there are pro life nuts such as yourself who follow anachronistic religious dogma.
Religious dogma? There are many anti abortion atheists. Science/Biology says life begins at conception with any species. Saying it doesn’t is simply a way to make pro abortion folks feel better about ending the life. People who smuggle declare they believe in “science” need to accept this fact. They can be certainly be pro abortion but one must always acknowledge that it does end a life. Stomping on a fertilized chicken egg ends a life. They can say it ends a life but don’t care, that’s fine. Make that argument. Don’t dance around the “when does life begin” bullshit.
Baby Killer is upset ... and still doesn't understand the quote function.
I threw out a scenario and I'm a baby killer. Totally unhinged...
Meltdown incoming.
There's no meltdown. Nobody can agree on when life starts. That's why I don't usually get involved in abortion discussions. There are lunatics who think it's fine to abort newborns or 38 weekers and there are pro life nuts such as yourself who follow anachronistic religious dogma.
Incorrect. Many of us (clear thinking and moral) folks know and agree it begins at conception. Prior to that very significant moment, you have two meaningless clump of cells. Basic biology Bill. Only social engineers make it complicated.
Creep where is the moral and clear thinking line drawn for when a person's life officially ends?
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
Baby Killer is upset ... and still doesn't understand the quote function.
I threw out a scenario and I'm a baby killer. Totally unhinged...
Meltdown incoming.
There's no meltdown. Nobody can agree on when life starts. That's why I don't usually get involved in abortion discussions. There are lunatics who think it's fine to abort newborns or 38 weekers and there are pro life nuts such as yourself who follow anachronistic religious dogma.
Religious dogma? There are many anti abortion atheists. Science/Biology says life begins at conception with any species. Saying it doesn’t is simply a way to make pro abortion folks feel better about ending the life. People who smuggle declare they believe in “science” need to accept this fact. They can be certainly be pro abortion but one must always acknowledge that it does end a life. Stomping on a fertilized chicken egg ends a life. They can say it ends a life but don’t care, that’s fine. Make that argument. Don’t dance around the “when does life begin” bullshit.
Damone gets it. Still praying for Race to come around.
Baby Killer is upset ... and still doesn't understand the quote function.
I threw out a scenario and I'm a baby killer. Totally unhinged...
Meltdown incoming.
There's no meltdown. Nobody can agree on when life starts. That's why I don't usually get involved in abortion discussions. There are lunatics who think it's fine to abort newborns or 38 weekers and there are pro life nuts such as yourself who follow anachronistic religious dogma.
Incorrect. Many of us (clear thinking and moral) folks know and agree it begins at conception. Prior to that very significant moment, you have two meaningless clump of cells. Basic biology Bill. Only social engineers make it complicated.
Creep where is the moral and clear thinking line drawn for when a person's life officially ends?
I can only handle one moral crisis at a time. I'm only a man.
Baby Killer is upset ... and still doesn't understand the quote function.
I threw out a scenario and I'm a baby killer. Totally unhinged...
Meltdown incoming.
There's no meltdown. Nobody can agree on when life starts. That's why I don't usually get involved in abortion discussions. There are lunatics who think it's fine to abort newborns or 38 weekers and there are pro life nuts such as yourself who follow anachronistic religious dogma.
Incorrect. Many of us (clear thinking and moral) folks know and agree it begins at conception. Prior to that very significant moment, you have two meaningless clump of cells. Basic biology Bill. Only social engineers make it complicated.
Creep where is the moral and clear thinking line drawn for when a person's life officially ends?
I can only handle one moral crisis at a time. I'm only a man.
I was hoping we could clear up this where life starts issue by tackling (maybe) a simpler and less controversial problem of where it officially ends. We (?) don't seem to have as big of a problem drawing the line at loss of brain or cardiopulmonary function when somebody dies.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
Freakanomics suggests abortion does cut down in society's undesirables.
What we're culling with abortion we're more than making up for with our immigration policies.
Baby Killer is upset ... and still doesn't understand the quote function.
I threw out a scenario and I'm a baby killer. Totally unhinged...
Meltdown incoming.
There's no meltdown. Nobody can agree on when life starts. That's why I don't usually get involved in abortion discussions. There are lunatics who think it's fine to abort newborns or 38 weekers and there are pro life nuts such as yourself who follow anachronistic religious dogma.
Incorrect. Many of us (clear thinking and moral) folks know and agree it begins at conception. Prior to that very significant moment, you have two meaningless clump of cells. Basic biology Bill. Only social engineers make it complicated.
Creep where is the moral and clear thinking line drawn for when a person's life officially ends?
I can only handle one moral crisis at a time. I'm only a man.
I was hoping we could clear up this where life starts issue by tackling (maybe) a simpler and less controversial problem of where it officially ends. We (?) don't seem to have as big of a problem drawing the line at loss of brain or cardiopulmonary function when somebody dies.
Like I said, one moral crisis at a time. You're also asking the wrong question. It is beyond dispute that life begins at conception. That's a physical truth and not subject to anyone's opinion or feelings. Sorry, that one is solved. The question is when does that life acquire the moral significance of being a person.
Your question about the end of life and when it ends is better posed to a physician, biologist or medical ethicist rather than a philosopher king. I would assume when brain activity and breathing have been irretrievably lost. But, wherever that point is, they are a person up to and including that very moment.
We're? solving personhood on the front end, and we? have succeeded.
Baby Killer is upset ... and still doesn't understand the quote function.
I threw out a scenario and I'm a baby killer. Totally unhinged...
Meltdown incoming.
There's no meltdown. Nobody can agree on when life starts. That's why I don't usually get involved in abortion discussions. There are lunatics who think it's fine to abort newborns or 38 weekers and there are pro life nuts such as yourself who follow anachronistic religious dogma.
Incorrect. Many of us (clear thinking and moral) folks know and agree it begins at conception. Prior to that very significant moment, you have two meaningless clump of cells. Basic biology Bill. Only social engineers make it complicated.
Creep where is the moral and clear thinking line drawn for when a person's life officially ends?
I can only handle one moral crisis at a time. I'm only a man.
I was hoping we could clear up this where life starts issue by tackling (maybe) a simpler and less controversial problem of where it officially ends. We (?) don't seem to have as big of a problem drawing the line at loss of brain or cardiopulmonary function when somebody dies.
Like I said, one moral crisis at a time. You're also asking the wrong question. It is beyond dispute that life begins at conception. That's a physical truth and not subject to anyone's opinion or feelings. Sorry, that one is solved. The question is when does that life acquire the moral significance of being a person.
Your question about the end of life and when it ends is better posed to a physician, biologist or medical ethicist rather than a philosopher king. I would assume when brain activity and breathing have been irretrievably lost. But, wherever that point is, they are a person up to and including that very moment.
We're? solving personhood on the front end, and we? have succeeded.
Appears you're no longer afraid of the Christian Right "doing something."
Baby Killer is upset ... and still doesn't understand the quote function.
I threw out a scenario and I'm a baby killer. Totally unhinged...
Meltdown incoming.
There's no meltdown. Nobody can agree on when life starts. That's why I don't usually get involved in abortion discussions. There are lunatics who think it's fine to abort newborns or 38 weekers and there are pro life nuts such as yourself who follow anachronistic religious dogma.
Incorrect. Many of us (clear thinking and moral) folks know and agree it begins at conception. Prior to that very significant moment, you have two meaningless clump of cells. Basic biology Bill. Only social engineers make it complicated.
Creep where is the moral and clear thinking line drawn for when a person's life officially ends?
I can only handle one moral crisis at a time. I'm only a man.
I was hoping we could clear up this where life starts issue by tackling (maybe) a simpler and less controversial problem of where it officially ends. We (?) don't seem to have as big of a problem drawing the line at loss of brain or cardiopulmonary function when somebody dies.
Like I said, one moral crisis at a time. You're also asking the wrong question. It is beyond dispute that life begins at conception. That's a physical truth and not subject to anyone's opinion or feelings. Sorry, that one is solved. The question is when does that life acquire the moral significance of being a person.
Your question about the end of life and when it ends is better posed to a physician, biologist or medical ethicist rather than a philosopher king. I would assume when brain activity and breathing have been irretrievably lost. But, wherever that point is, they are a person up to and including that very moment.
We're? solving personhood on the front end, and we? have succeeded.
Appears you're no longer afraid of the Christian Right "doing something."
You just couldn't help yourself. In the name of Jesus, don't pollute this higher-level discussion with your perverted and insatiable fetish for 'gotcha' politics and unrelenting need to rub people's noses in shit whenever you find the chance. As the Tug's new overlord, 99% of this board is your real estate. Be a good Christian and spare this little discussion about clarifying a compelling moral imperative and leave it to those who wish to peacefully and sincerely explore their conscience and find the right way. I'm doing good work here. Leave me to it.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.
Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.
Turd, mi hermano: we are talking about one of the most basic moral principles that human beings have to weigh: the right to life and the few exceptions when we? can override that right. Self-defense and defense of property and persons in limited circumstances, and war, and that's about it as I recall. We cannot parse the infinite factual cum dumping circumstances of the masses. This is ivory tower ese. This is Plato's academy ( @YellowSnow ).
If we do the right thing and outlaw what should be blanketly outlawed, then we're going to need to do something about the welfare state or the homeless camps are going to be a detail compared to what'll be waiting for us.
Dudes will start using jimmy hats or get vasectomies or whatever. But they are part of the person-making process. Can't let them cut and run. Trap or no trap, nobody forced anybody to do anything. He was there, did what he did, and now he has to be held to account.
I can so no alternative, but am all ears. Hey, I had three and took care of mine. That's what real men do.
It happened to my former brother-in-law by some crazy woman in L.A. He took responsibility and worked with the grandparents to raise the kid in the absence of the crazy witch who revolved between insane asylums, jails and crackhouses the entire kid's childhood.
Had it not been for wealthy grandparents, the kid's life would've been impoverished and shitty, despite her dad being a very decent guy.
These are the rarest of cases, however, when things work out okay for the kid and the trapped father.
Good for him. He did the right thing. The hard thing, but the right thing.
I personally agree that a "termination" is a taking of a human life. Good
But I'm also wise enough to know 2/3 of the country will gladly look the other way and allow or support it, in case it happens to them or in their family. Agreed, but doesn't matter.
Like war, the U.S. population will accept a significant amount of casualties to protect and defend their own asses. Agreed but doesn't matter.
Reality trumps Morality on this one. Never. Take the L and move on. When one is on the side of the righteous, it's never a L. With probably closing in on100 responses on this topic, mostly supportive but qualified, I'm like the 2001 Canes: undefeated.
Chinned Only because I’ve had great fucking times in Miami. What a great city.
Comments
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Also, Cum-and-run Baby Daddies - yeah I'm looking at you. You're in Creepy's crosshairs now.
TYFYS
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
Your question about the end of life and when it ends is better posed to a physician, biologist or medical ethicist rather than a philosopher king. I would assume when brain activity and breathing have been irretrievably lost. But, wherever that point is, they are a person up to and including that very moment.
We're? solving personhood on the front end, and we? have succeeded.
Your body is a Wonder, I'll use my hands
Your body is a Wonderland