Genuine or not I find @creepycoug arguments and logic interesting. If you can't beat him at this game then your arguments are shitty regardless of if he personally feels that way or not.
We lost our democracy today when an unelected court suggested they don’t have the power to legislate and that elected officials should determine the law. Sad day really.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I still cannot understand how people applaud handing this over to the states, which will leave us? with a patch-work of laws that will run the spectrum. [So?]
There's a reason that no state, not even Mississippi, can legalize slavery. [Constitutional amendment #13 bars slavery in the US]. Same applies here. [It doesn't]
But, but, but social strife is irrelevant.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Good enough for me. If the constitution needs an amendment to clarify that it protects the lives of the innocent, then it's a piece of paper not worth wiping my ass with.
What you're really saying is that, if the states want to legalize the taking of innocent life, then they can until we amend the Constitution.
Is that where you sit on this issue?
Shame on you.
The kids alive at conception. Applies and I agree they should have banned abortion.
We lost our democracy today when an unelected court suggested they don’t have the power to legislate and that elected officials should determine the law. Sad day really.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I still cannot understand how people applaud handing this over to the states, which will leave us? with a patch-work of laws that will run the spectrum. [So?]
There's a reason that no state, not even Mississippi, can legalize slavery. [Constitutional amendment #13 bars slavery in the US]. Same applies here. [It doesn't]
But, but, but social strife is irrelevant.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Good enough for me. If the constitution needs an amendment to clarify that it protects the lives of the innocent, then it's a piece of paper not worth wiping my ass with.
What you're really saying is that, if the states want to legalize the taking of innocent life, then they can until we amend the Constitution.
Is that where you sit on this issue?
Shame on you.
The kids alive at conception. Applies and I agree they should have banned abortion.
Meh. Forced abortions under certain income is my policy. Yes I am a facist. I don't care.
Oh. I thought you meant the baby had a right to choose if it lived. My bad.
You were wrong. I care about not getting jammed up with child support
Eh the hysteria is overrated. Most likely it will end with states codifying time limits.
As it should have been for awhile
Killing people you created so you don't have to support them. How progressive!
I'm not progressive at all
What exactly gave you that idea. I've been on here for like 8 years lol
Disagree. Killing inconvenient people is very progressive.
I'm fascist.
I believe I'm correct and most people are wrong.
Tomato Tamahto
I believe kids under an income threshold that don't do well in school enough to deserve scholarships should go into specifically tailored military schools.
Oh. I thought you meant the baby had a right to choose if it lived. My bad.
You were wrong. I care about not getting jammed up with child support
Eh the hysteria is overrated. Most likely it will end with states codifying time limits.
As it should have been for awhile
Killing people you created so you don't have to support them. How progressive!
I'm not progressive at all
What exactly gave you that idea. I've been on here for like 8 years lol
Disagree. Killing inconvenient people is very progressive.
I'm fascist.
I believe I'm correct and most people are wrong.
Tomato Tamahto
I believe kids under an income threshold that don't do well in school enough to deserve scholarships should go into specifically tailored military schools.
That'd solve a big problem.
Like I said. Tomato Tomahto.
How you seen how beautiful the train stations are in Moscow?
Oh. I thought you meant the baby had a right to choose if it lived. My bad.
You were wrong. I care about not getting jammed up with child support
Eh the hysteria is overrated. Most likely it will end with states codifying time limits.
As it should have been for awhile
Killing people you created so you don't have to support them. How progressive!
I'm not progressive at all
What exactly gave you that idea. I've been on here for like 8 years lol
Disagree. Killing inconvenient people is very progressive.
I'm fascist.
I believe I'm correct and most people are wrong.
Tomato Tamahto
I believe kids under an income threshold tht don't do well in school enough to deserve scholarships should go into specifically tailored military schools.
That'd solve a big problem.
Like I said. Tomato Tomahto.
How you seen how beautiful the train stations are in Moscow?
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
No quandary at all Pawz.
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency. War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Oh. I thought you meant the baby had a right to choose if it lived. My bad.
You were wrong. I care about not getting jammed up with child support
Eh the hysteria is overrated. Most likely it will end with states codifying time limits.
As it should have been for awhile
Killing people you created so you don't have to support them. How progressive!
I'm not progressive at all
What exactly gave you that idea. I've been on here for like 8 years lol
Disagree. Killing inconvenient people is very progressive.
I'm fascist.
I believe I'm correct and most people are wrong.
Tomato Tamahto
I believe kids under an income threshold tht don't do well in school enough to deserve scholarships should go into specifically tailored military schools.
That'd solve a big problem.
Like I said. Tomato Tomahto.
How you seen how beautiful the train stations are in Moscow?
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
No quandary at all Pawz.
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency. War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
No quandary at all Pawz.
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency. War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
No quandary at all Pawz.
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency. War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
No quandary at all Pawz.
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency. War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
I missed the qualifier 'innocent' in the preamble.
Therefore,
The end of capital punishment.
The end of any/all war.
Moreover, that you have no regard for the life of the birthing person runs a foul your seeming altruistic position for life. Would really like to know how you make that round circle square. TIA.
Quite the quandary you've found for yourself.
"Unfortunate necessity" was always the correct answer
No quandary at all Pawz.
Firstly, if the reference to "life" in the preamble doesn't apply to innocent life, then to what kind of life would it apply? If you want to make the argument that it doesn't apply to non-innocent lives, then have at it. It's beyond the scope of necessity to substantiate my view; the fetus is unambiguously innocent. Even the one that threatens the mother's life. Get ye to Savery Hall stat.
Capital Punishment, war, etc. ... there are many people who view those killings as morally objectionable. Ask Damone how he feels about capital punishment and the state's power to take life, even in the most severe of criminal circumstances. And we would surely agree, even though Race would not, that if we somehow knew that a defendant were innocent, the taking of its life by the state would be an abhorrent affront to moral decency. War is more complicated, but at least at the individual soldier level there is some aspect of a self-defense claim. But, again, a lot of people view war killing as killing. YMMV.
The charge that I have no regard for the life of the birthing person is a non-sequitur. I have sufficient regard for that person. But let's consider an analogy: let's say we could save your life by taking mine. Does it follow, then, that you or your loved ones, or the state, are justified in taking my life in the name of saving yours? No. That argument is a loser and gets blown up in 5 seconds in any intro to moral philosophy class ... even one at Oregon.
And, of course, none of that compromises my argument in the least. The fetus is not an armed enemy soldier, nor is it on trial for a capital crime. Moreover, the fetus did not place itself in the position to threaten the mother's life; the mother did. It's as innocent as any life form can be.
Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious why you assume that the Constitution applies to the unborn.
Because they are the moral equivalent of you and me. Talk me out of it.
Notwithstanding that moral equivalency is subject to debate, I'm moreso wondering if there is any authority (or other text) suggesting that the Constitution was intended to apply to any unborn.
Comments
Eh the hysteria is overrated. Most likely it will end with states codifying time limits.
As it should have been for awhile
Don't want kids? Don't get knocked up.
What exactly gave you that idea. I've been on here for like 8 years lol
I believe I'm correct and most people are wrong.
That'd solve a big problem.
How you seen how beautiful the train stations are in Moscow?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible