Abortion intended to wipe out black. Hilarious

[LTC8K6]

The Church's Fried Chicken plan isn't working?

 

[highland145]

I don't understand the question.

Hypothetical question because the idea of experiencing this is unbearable.

Pro lifers say life starts at conception and should be cherished. The choicers disagree and say it doesn't until some point of their choosing. I've heard 6 months in the womb to the moment of birth. From a logical argument stand point, if the fetus is discardable, at any point, why would a child not be in the same category. The fetus becomes the child. So an abortionist should not grieve the loss of a child.

 

[Atreus21]

Hypothetical question because the idea of experiencing this is unbearable.

Pro lifers say life starts at conception and should be cherished. The choicers disagree and say it doesn't until some point of their choosing. I've heard 6 months in the womb to the moment of birth. From a logical argument stand point, if the fetus is discardable, at any point, why would a child not be in the same category. The fetus becomes the child. So an abortionist should not grieve the loss of a child.

I'd ask the same question of them.

My argument against abortion stems from the inability of science to name a defining moment at which humanity is bestowed, and therefore if we are to be responsible, we must place it at the earliest possible moment, or else we are guilty of negligent homicide.

Furthermore, if abortion proponents place any date before which abortion is permissable, I'll call it out as arbitrarily chosen.

My intention is to force the recognition that the only way a view in support of abortion can be logically defensible is to believe that abortion at any stage of the pregnancy is permissable. Which of course is barbaric.

And then comes your point. If abortion proponents claim this, then why shouldn't infantacide be legal? What's the difference between a baby 2 seconds prior to birth and one second after it?

 

[highland145]

I'd ask the same question of them.

My argument against abortion stems from the inability of science to name a defining moment at which humanity is bestowed, and therefore if we are to be responsible, we must place it at the earliest possible moment, or else we are guilty of negligent homicide.

Furthermore, if abortion proponents place any date before which abortion is permissable, I'll call it out as arbitrarily chosen.

My intention is to force the recognition that the only way a view in support of abortion can be logically defensible is to believe that abortion at any stage of the pregnancy is permissable. Which of course is barbaric.

And then comes your point. If abortion proponents claim this, then why shouldn't infantacide be legal? What's the difference between a baby 2 seconds prior to birth and one second after it?

Maybe we'll be "enlightened" by some here. Expect the incest/rape argument for abortions but since that is less than 1% hopefully they will leave that one at home. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

 

[HumblePie]

The founders intended for the federal government to handle issues of national security and interstate commerce. All other issues should be handled at a state level. Social Security and medicare are all against the intent of the founding fathers. Less government, more liberty!

This is pure FUD and idiocy. Per Article One of the Constitution Congress is to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

You see WELFARE written right there. After the preamble it is the first effing thing written about in the Constitution. The Federal government is suppose to decide upon issues that affect the welfare of the entire nation. NOT the states, NOT the counties, NOT the cities, and NOT whatever smaller local government like your home owner association does.

It's not as if everyone in the legislative branch one day decided, "Hey we should make abortion a national issue and handle it at the federal level!" And then started making rules about it. It was brought UP to the federal level after local levels were unable to handle it in many cases. Once it was deemed to be an issue at a national level because it affects everyone, then was the legislative branch involved.

Stop spreading lies, fud and other crap Hacp. That is exactly what that post was. Having an opinion that you prefer less federal government intervention on issues, and you need to state specific issues, is perfectly a legit argument. However, stating that the legislative branch is wrong for promoting the general welfare of the entire nation because our founding fathers said it should is a BOLD FACED EFFING LIE!

 

[Hacp]

This is pure FUD ad idiocy. Per Article One of the Constitution Congress is to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

You see WELFARE written right there. After the preamble it is the first effing thing written about in the Constitution. The Federal government is suppose to decide upon issues that affect the welfare of the entire nation. NOT the states, NOT the counties, NOT the cities, and NOT whatever smaller local government like your home owner association does.

It's not as if everyone in the legislative branch one day decided, "Hey we should make abortion a national issue and handle it at the federal level!" And then started making rules about it. It was brought UP to the federal level after local levels were unable to handle it in many cases. Once it was deemed to be an issue at a national level because it affects everyone, then was the legislative branch involved.

Stop spreading lies, fud and other crap Hacp. That is exactly what that post was. Having an opinion that you prefer less federal government intervention on issues, and you need to state specific issues, is perfectly a legit argument. However, stating that the legislative branch is wrong for promoting the general welfare of the entire nation because our founding fathers said it should is a BOLD FACED EFFING LIE!

Common defense and general welfare. Ever wonder why they're in the same line? That phrase means the feds will protect you from foreign invaders. It doesn't mean the founders gave the government the right to take away our liberty.

 

[HumblePie]

Common defense and general welfare. Ever wonder why they're in the same line? That phrase means the feds will protect you from foreign invaders. It doesn't mean the founders gave the government the right to take away our liberty.

What do you think legislating means exactly? And you are assuming common defense means defense from foreign. Stop ASSUMING shit. Defense means defense, both foreign AND domestic, which is listed multiple times. Tell me which do you think is worse? The suicide bomber that crashes a plane killing hundreds of people or the wall street asshole that fleeces billlions to put untold thousands homeless, in the streets, to suffer and die years later?

Moron, that line is meant literally for what it is stated. For defense and welfare. You can't draw an arbitrary line or boundary based on your own opinion. Your feelings about it doesn't change what it means nor exactly how it is written. Nor does is change how it is written in other places. Hacp, in this you are ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY wrong. Get over it. You have been pwned and school on this.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'd ask the same question of them.

My argument against abortion stems from the inability of science to name a defining moment at which humanity is bestowed, and therefore if we are to be responsible, we must place it at the earliest possible moment, or else we are guilty of negligent homicide.

Furthermore, if abortion proponents place any date before which abortion is permissable, I'll call it out as arbitrarily chosen.

My intention is to force the recognition that the only way a view in support of abortion can be logically defensible is to believe that abortion at any stage of the pregnancy is permissable. Which of course is barbaric.

And then comes your point. If abortion proponents claim this, then why shouldn't infantacide be legal? What's the difference between a baby 2 seconds prior to birth and one second after it?

Science does not have a problem with defining LIFE, pre-week 25 fetuses are as alive as any born clinically dead human being.

We've had this discussion before but it goes in one ear and out the other because reality doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[thraashman]

Why is it that conservatives are so adamant about outlawing abortion, but love killing? The same people arguing against abortion in here are the ones who are for capital punishment and who excitedly claim that if someone broke into their house, they'd shoot em dead. Well, how many of these women that have abortions would be able to raise the child well? Many of these fetuses would grow up in low-income families. A disproportionate number would eventually turn to crime. So I think I've figured it out. The conservatives don't wanna protect life. They want to create more targets for their guns and gas chambers!

Tricky, tricky but you don't have me fooled.

 

[highland145]

Why is it that conservatives are so adamant about outlawing abortion, but love killing? The same people arguing against abortion in here are the ones who are for capital punishment and who excitedly claim that if someone broke into their house, they'd shoot em dead.

Actually, the right ( pro life or not) would argue that those in your examples have given up their right to life by their own actions.

Abortion is another issue.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Why is it that conservatives are so adamant about outlawing abortion, but love killing? The same people arguing against abortion in here are the ones who are for capital punishment and who excitedly claim that if someone broke into their house, they'd shoot em dead. Well, how many of these women that have abortions would be able to raise the child well? Many of these fetuses would grow up in low-income families. A disproportionate number would eventually turn to crime. So I think I've figured it out. The conservatives don't wanna protect life. They want to create more targets for their guns and gas chambers!

Tricky, tricky but you don't have me fooled.

I don't think this kind of argument is in the least bit productive since in all of your examples there are actions and reaction involving both parties and it's not comparable to what they see as an innocent human. (i didn't say human being because for those who thinks that beingness precedes life there is no hope anyway).

 

[her209]

My argument against abortion stems from the inability of science to name a defining moment at which humanity is bestowed,

From a scientific and philosophical standpoint, how do you define someone who is alive, brain dead, and just died.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Actually, the right ( pro life or not) would argue that those in your examples have given up their right to life by their own actions.

Abortion is another issue.

Of course it is, a fetus pre-week 25 isn't alive by any measurement used for born people.

You couldn't KILL a person that was as alive as a pre-week 25 fetus because such a person would already be dead.

 

[highland145]

From a scientific and philosophical standpoint, how do you define someone who is alive, brain dead, and just died.

Wouldn't a M.D. look at brain function?

 

[Atreus21]

From a scientific and philosophical standpoint, how do you define someone who is alive, brain dead, and just died.

Frankly, I'm unsure how to define it.

But I know I'm alive. I know everyone else is alive, and not braindead.

I can extrapolate that a baby who was born five seconds ago is a human being now, and was a human being six seconds ago.

And let me be clear. With regard to brain-dead and recently dead people, for the most part we're talking about people who are in danger because of illness, or accident, or similar circumstances, whereas abortion is for the most part deliberate, and within our control to avoid. WE put them in danger.

There is a major distinction to be made between the issues of how to ethically treat adults who are near death, and the question of whether to treat unborn humans as nothing more than parasitic pests.

 

[highland145]

Of course it is, a fetus pre-week 25 isn't alive by any measurement used for born people.

You couldn't KILL a person that was as alive as a pre-week 25 fetus because such a person would already be dead.

Just for the sake of argument, I could say that a 2 year old doesn't qualify either because they aren't self sufficient.

Crap. That would include a large portion of our population.

 

[highland145]

I know everyone else is alive, and not braindead.

Giving a lot of credit here, aren't you.😀

 

[her209]

Wouldn't a M.D. look at brain function?

So the M.D. would equate the brain dead person with the dead person?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Just for the sake of argument, I could say that a 2 year old doesn't qualify either because they aren't self sufficient.

Crap. That would include a large portion of our population.

You could say that a 2 year old isn't alive because it's not self sufficient? Well sure you could say that but that would just be daft.

I'm talking about the clinical definition of life used every single day.

 

[Atreus21]

Why is it that conservatives are so adamant about outlawing abortion, but love killing? The same people arguing against abortion in here are the ones who are for capital punishment and who excitedly claim that if someone broke into their house, they'd shoot em dead. Well, how many of these women that have abortions would be able to raise the child well? Many of these fetuses would grow up in low-income families. A disproportionate number would eventually turn to crime. So I think I've figured it out. The conservatives don't wanna protect life. They want to create more targets for their guns and gas chambers!

Tricky, tricky but you don't have me fooled.

Killing is not especially outlawed. It depends on whom you kill and why.

Killing out of self-defense is permissable. Both to God and humans. Killing in a war is permissable, although that's fuzzy. Killing a man convicted of a capital crime, I'm personally conflicted about.

Killing an infant for the sake of convenience is barbaric. It has no place among people who call themselves enlightened and civilized.

 

[thraashman]

Killing is not especially outlawed. It depends on whom you kill and why.

Killing out of self-defense is permissable. Both to God and humans. Killing in a war is permissable, although that's fuzzy. Killing a man convicted of a capital crime, I'm personally conflicted about.

Killing an infant for the sake of convenience is barbaric. It has no place among people who call themselves enlightened and civilized.

Hey, if I have a cancerous tumor in my body that I don't want, I'm getting it removed. Same thing if I have a fetus I don't want, it's going bye bye (note, i'm a guy so the second won't be happening I really really hope). Tumor is a living mass of cells, fetus is a mass of living cells. You can say that the fetus has the potential to form into a human, perhaps I have some kind of rare cancer that if left would develop into a full other person. Fuck potentials, think of what is. And in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, what is is that that shit's gotta go however it has to get gone.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Frankly, I'm unsure how to define it.

But I know I'm alive. I know everyone else is alive, and not braindead.

I can extrapolate that a baby who was born five seconds ago is a human being now, and was a human being six seconds ago.

And let me be clear. With regard to brain-dead and recently dead people, for the most part we're talking about people who are in danger because of illness, or accident, or similar circumstances, whereas abortion is for the most part deliberate, and within our control to avoid. WE put them in danger.

There is a major distinction to be made between the issues of how to ethically treat adults who are near death, and the question of whether to treat unborn humans as nothing more than parasitic pests.

Again, you are being dishonest because there is no way in HELL you don't get the argument.

We're not talking about alive humans being aborted and how we can stop that, stop twisting and turning, the fact is that they are as dead as you'd be if you blew your skull clean off. There is nothing there, no one is home, there is no personality, no memory, no bloody nothing.

You should consider me calling you dishonest a compliment because the alternative is MUCH worse.

 

[highland145]

You could say that a 2 year old isn't alive because it's not self sufficient? Well sure you could say that but that would just be daft.

I'm talking about the clinical definition of life used every single day.

Of course it's daft. I asked the question earlier, brain activity, heart beating?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Killing is not especially outlawed. It depends on whom you kill and why.

Killing out of self-defense is permissable. Both to God and humans. Killing in a war is permissable, although that's fuzzy. Killing a man convicted of a capital crime, I'm personally conflicted about.

Killing an infant for the sake of convenience is barbaric. It has no place among people who call themselves enlightened and civilized.

Killing an infant is also highly illegal and i would have no problem putting a person who did that to death.

But we're not talking about that at all, which you bloody well know.

 

[highland145]

So the M.D. would equate the brain dead person with the dead person?

I'm asking. If they are brain dead don't they take them off life support?