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.
I worded it wrong. Not life, but something resembling a human that's beyond a clump of cells
Developing human life. Abortion interrupts that development.
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.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
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.
But, but the Christian Right might do something!!!!
The Christian Right needs to mind their own business and lead by example.
From Protesting Abortion clinics to that "God Hates Fags" shit, the Christian Right activists do nothing but piss people off and make the truly looney left look like a reasonable counterbalance to a Looney Right. They will never move the left or center a single inch while they keep giving their causes black eyes. ISAFNRC, I know.
Give me a fucking break. The god hates fags freaks are a fringe of fringe of fringe they no more represent the Christian Right than Frank James the NYC subway shooter represents all black people. The Christain Right is a leftwing boogie man. There is nothing they do or think that impacts me and my life in any way. I can't say the same about the religious left.
So you show up for the Christians, early and often, but remain silent on the unborn. Pathetic.
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.
But, but the Christian Right might do something!!!!
The Christian Right needs to mind their own business and lead by example.
From Protesting Abortion clinics to that "God Hates Fags" shit, the Christian Right activists do nothing but piss people off and make the truly looney left look like a reasonable counterbalance to a Looney Right. They will never move the left or center a single inch while they keep giving their causes black eyes. ISAFNRC, I know.
Give me a fucking break. The god hates fags freaks are a fringe of fringe of fringe they no more represent the Christian Right than Frank James the NYC subway shooter represents all black people. The Christain Right is a leftwing boogie man. There is nothing they do or think that impacts me and my life in any way. I can't say the same about the religious left.
So you show up for the Christians, early and often, but remain silent on the unborn. Pathetic.
I show up for the truth. If you want to argue that the "God Hates Fags" crowd reflects a significant number of the Christian Right have at it. I mock you for your "but, but, but, the Christian Right might do something" hysteria because it's fun and it reveals the irrational and emotional blind-spot you have. I'm not a Christian.
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.
But, but the Christian Right might do something!!!!
The Christian Right needs to mind their own business and lead by example.
From Protesting Abortion clinics to that "God Hates Fags" shit, the Christian Right activists do nothing but piss people off and make the truly looney left look like a reasonable counterbalance to a Looney Right. They will never move the left or center a single inch while they keep giving their causes black eyes. ISAFNRC, I know.
Give me a fucking break. The god hates fags freaks are a fringe of fringe of fringe they no more represent the Christian Right than Frank James the NYC subway shooter represents all black people. The Christain Right is a leftwing boogie man. There is nothing they do or think that impacts me and my life in any way. I can't say the same about the religious left.
So you show up for the Christians, early and often, but remain silent on the unborn. Pathetic.
I show up for the truth. If you want to argue that the "God Hates Fags" crowd reflects a significant number of the Christian Right have at it. I mock you for your "but, but, but, the Christian Right might do something" hysteria because it's fun and it reveals the irrational and emotional blind-spot you have. I'm not a Christian.
Bob, if you're gonna run with my stuff, do it right. I gave a spectrum, from abortion clinic protesters to the God Hates Fags crowd - whom are obviously the lunatic fringe. HTH
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.
But, but the Christian Right might do something!!!!
The Christian Right needs to mind their own business and lead by example.
From Protesting Abortion clinics to that "God Hates Fags" shit, the Christian Right activists do nothing but piss people off and make the truly looney left look like a reasonable counterbalance to a Looney Right. They will never move the left or center a single inch while they keep giving their causes black eyes. ISAFNRC, I know.
Give me a fucking break. The god hates fags freaks are a fringe of fringe of fringe they no more represent the Christian Right than Frank James the NYC subway shooter represents all black people. The Christain Right is a leftwing boogie man. There is nothing they do or think that impacts me and my life in any way. I can't say the same about the religious left.
So you show up for the Christians, early and often, but remain silent on the unborn. Pathetic.
I show up for the truth. If you want to argue that the "God Hates Fags" crowd reflects a significant number of the Christian Right have at it. I mock you for your "but, but, but, the Christian Right might do something" hysteria because it's fun and it reveals the irrational and emotional blind-spot you have. I'm not a Christian.
First, you have me confused with another poster. Slow down and take your time.
More importantly, you have an opportunity here to show up for truth as it pertains to one of the most compelling moral issues of our time. But instead, you want to play games about alleged hysteria and "reveal" things about me. Good for you Bob. I'm sure it's an important contribution.
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.
But, but the Christian Right might do something!!!!
The Christian Right needs to mind their own business and lead by example.
From Protesting Abortion clinics to that "God Hates Fags" shit, the Christian Right activists do nothing but piss people off and make the truly looney left look like a reasonable counterbalance to a Looney Right. They will never move the left or center a single inch while they keep giving their causes black eyes. ISAFNRC, I know.
Give me a fucking break. The god hates fags freaks are a fringe of fringe of fringe they no more represent the Christian Right than Frank James the NYC subway shooter represents all black people. The Christain Right is a leftwing boogie man. There is nothing they do or think that impacts me and my life in any way. I can't say the same about the religious left.
So you show up for the Christians, early and often, but remain silent on the unborn. Pathetic.
I show up for the truth. If you want to argue that the "God Hates Fags" crowd reflects a significant number of the Christian Right have at it. I mock you for your "but, but, but, the Christian Right might do something" hysteria because it's fun and it reveals the irrational and emotional blind-spot you have. I'm not a Christian.
First, you have me confused with another poster. Slow down and take your time.
More importantly, you have an opportunity here to show up for truth as it pertains to one of the most compelling moral issues of our time. But instead, you want to play games about alleged hysteria and "reveal" things about me. Good for you Bob. I'm sure it's an important contribution.
I've already stated my position on this. Unlike you I can express myself and get my point across in less than 5,000 words.
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.
But, but the Christian Right might do something!!!!
The Christian Right needs to mind their own business and lead by example.
From Protesting Abortion clinics to that "God Hates Fags" shit, the Christian Right activists do nothing but piss people off and make the truly looney left look like a reasonable counterbalance to a Looney Right. They will never move the left or center a single inch while they keep giving their causes black eyes. ISAFNRC, I know.
Give me a fucking break. The god hates fags freaks are a fringe of fringe of fringe they no more represent the Christian Right than Frank James the NYC subway shooter represents all black people. The Christain Right is a leftwing boogie man. There is nothing they do or think that impacts me and my life in any way. I can't say the same about the religious left.
So you show up for the Christians, early and often, but remain silent on the unborn. Pathetic.
I show up for the truth. If you want to argue that the "God Hates Fags" crowd reflects a significant number of the Christian Right have at it. I mock you for your "but, but, but, the Christian Right might do something" hysteria because it's fun and it reveals the irrational and emotional blind-spot you have. I'm not a Christian.
First, you have me confused with another poster. Slow down and take your time.
More importantly, you have an opportunity here to show up for truth as it pertains to one of the most compelling moral issues of our time. But instead, you want to play games about alleged hysteria and "reveal" things about me. Good for you Bob. I'm sure it's an important contribution.
I've already stated my position on this. Unlike you I can express myself and get my point across in less than 5,000 words.
So, I have you down for pro-infanticide. Good to know.
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.
But, but the Christian Right might do something!!!!
The Christian Right needs to mind their own business and lead by example.
From Protesting Abortion clinics to that "God Hates Fags" shit, the Christian Right activists do nothing but piss people off and make the truly looney left look like a reasonable counterbalance to a Looney Right. They will never move the left or center a single inch while they keep giving their causes black eyes. ISAFNRC, I know.
Give me a fucking break. The god hates fags freaks are a fringe of fringe of fringe they no more represent the Christian Right than Frank James the NYC subway shooter represents all black people. The Christain Right is a leftwing boogie man. There is nothing they do or think that impacts me and my life in any way. I can't say the same about the religious left.
So you show up for the Christians, early and often, but remain silent on the unborn. Pathetic.
I show up for the truth. If you want to argue that the "God Hates Fags" crowd reflects a significant number of the Christian Right have at it. I mock you for your "but, but, but, the Christian Right might do something" hysteria because it's fun and it reveals the irrational and emotional blind-spot you have. I'm not a Christian.
First, you have me confused with another poster. Slow down and take your time.
More importantly, you have an opportunity here to show up for truth as it pertains to one of the most compelling moral issues of our time. But instead, you want to play games about alleged hysteria and "reveal" things about me. Good for you Bob. I'm sure it's an important contribution.
I've already stated my position on this. Unlike you I can express myself and get my point across in less than 5,000 words.
So, I have you down for pro-infanticide. Good to know.
Yes, I'm worried that the Christain Right might do something if I were to take any other position.
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.
But, but the Christian Right might do something!!!!
The Christian Right needs to mind their own business and lead by example.
From Protesting Abortion clinics to that "God Hates Fags" shit, the Christian Right activists do nothing but piss people off and make the truly looney left look like a reasonable counterbalance to a Looney Right. They will never move the left or center a single inch while they keep giving their causes black eyes. ISAFNRC, I know.
Give me a fucking break. The god hates fags freaks are a fringe of fringe of fringe they no more represent the Christian Right than Frank James the NYC subway shooter represents all black people. The Christain Right is a leftwing boogie man. There is nothing they do or think that impacts me and my life in any way. I can't say the same about the religious left.
So you show up for the Christians, early and often, but remain silent on the unborn. Pathetic.
I show up for the truth. If you want to argue that the "God Hates Fags" crowd reflects a significant number of the Christian Right have at it. I mock you for your "but, but, but, the Christian Right might do something" hysteria because it's fun and it reveals the irrational and emotional blind-spot you have. I'm not a Christian.
First, you have me confused with another poster. Slow down and take your time.
More importantly, you have an opportunity here to show up for truth as it pertains to one of the most compelling moral issues of our time. But instead, you want to play games about alleged hysteria and "reveal" things about me. Good for you Bob. I'm sure it's an important contribution.
I've already stated my position on this. Unlike you I can express myself and get my point across in less than 5,000 words.
So, I have you down for pro-infanticide. Good to know.
Yes, I'm worried that the Christain Right might do something if I were to take any other position.
Baby killer and point-dodger heard from. Pathetic.
And you're worried the Christian right might do something if you were to take a position other than supporting infanticide? That's an interesting take.
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.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
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.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
At what point can a birthing person no longer decide if their child dies? If there is a point, why are you arbitrating who lives and 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.
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.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
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.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
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.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
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.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
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.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Comments
More importantly, you have an opportunity here to show up for truth as it pertains to one of the most compelling moral issues of our time. But instead, you want to play games about alleged hysteria and "reveal" things about me. Good for you Bob. I'm sure it's an important contribution.
And you're worried the Christian right might do something if you were to take a position other than supporting infanticide? That's an interesting take.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
2) Gates Hall is the Law School. https://www.law.uw.edu/about/gates-hall
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
And am wondering why that is bad