Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

My body MY CHOICE

11314161819

Comments

  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 19,999 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    elegantly simple
    And poignant.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    edited May 2022
    pawz said:

    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.


  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    SFGbob said:

    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.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863

    I was going to make a "If we're gonna start bashing..." joke, but I just can't
    This is no place for Malarkey Stalin. And, it's not Monday.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,181
    edited May 2022

    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.
  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 19,999 Standard Supporter
    edited May 2022
    SFGbob said:

    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
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    SFGbob said:

    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.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,181

    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.

  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    SFGbob said:

    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.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,181

    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.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    edited May 2022
    SFGbob said:

    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.
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 22,097 Founders Club
    edited May 2022

    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.


  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    pawz said:

    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?
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    edited May 2022
    pawz said:

    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.
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 22,097 Founders Club

    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.
    1) Evidenced by the reversal on Roe.

    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.


  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    pawz said:

    1) Evidenced by the reversal on Roe.

    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.


    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.
  • pawzpawz Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 22,097 Founders Club

    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.

  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    pawz said:

    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.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,427
    The man should be able to choose abortion.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 111,034 Founders Club
    I heard that getting rid of Roe v Wade might end up with taking away a women's right to vote


    And am wondering why that is bad
Sign In or Register to comment.