Breaking: SCOTUS strikes down Texas abortion restriction

[buckshot24]

A zygote or fetus is not an independent developed life. This has been defined medically, as well as legally. The argument against it is an empty fable so this is a good decision, another victory for rational evidenced based thought and people to have dominion over their own bodies. The opposition to abortion has largely been fueled by religious mythologies. Halting abortion due to religious beliefs would be like banning dentistry because of a belief that the tooth fairy will take of dental health.

Why should meat machines have dominion over their bodies? Where does that come from?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why should meat machines have dominion over their bodies? Where does that come from?

If you're telling us that you don't empathize with others then you're telling us you're a sociopath.

Either that or you don't believe in or want the right to bodily sovereignty for yourself.

Suffice it to say, even if you don't, the rest of us rational individuals do, so we extend to him the same respect we expect from others.

Do you believe that you enjoy a right to bodily sovereignty yourself? Where does that "come from"?

 

[Eli]

What do you mean by unrestricted access? Do you think women should be proud about aborting their babies?

What I said: If they made an educated decision that would end up bettering their lives, yes they should.

What you think I said: fuck yes they should! Abortion party! Why don't they have those? I see a new business opportunity! It's where people sit around and count all the money they're going to save now that the fetus I mean baby is in the trash!

:hmm:

 

[brycejones]

Why should meat machines have dominion over their bodies? Where does that come from?

Why don't you try to explain why human beings shouldn't have dominion over their bodies? Where does that come from?

 

[Meghan54]

Why don't you try to explain why human beings shouldn't have dominion over their bodies? Where does that come from?

You'll get a more coherent answer if you asked a sack of doorknobs instead of buckscat....or any answer, for that matter.

 

[JD50]

If you're telling us that you don't empathize with others then you're telling us you're a sociopath.

Either that or you don't believe in or want the right to bodily sovereignty for yourself.

Suffice it to say, even if you don't, the rest of us rational individuals do, so we extend to him the same respect we expect from others.

Do you believe that you enjoy a right to bodily sovereignty yourself? Where does that "come from"?

Exactly.

 

[buckshot24]

Why don't you try to explain why human beings shouldn't have dominion over their bodies? Where does that come from?

I don't believe this so I have no reason to try and explain it. Do you have an explanation for why cosmic accidents deserve dominion over their bodies? Where do these rights come from?

 

[buckshot24]

You'll get a more coherent answer if you asked a sack of doorknobs instead of buckscat....or any answer, for that matter.

Still smarting from that self ownage in the Muslim thread? Forgive yourself and move on, no need beating yourself up over it.

 

[brycejones]

I don't believe this so I have no reason to try and explain it.

So you believe human beings should have dominion over their own bodies?

 

[JD50]

I don't believe this so I have no reason to try and explain it. Do you have an explanation for why cosmic accidents deserve dominion over their bodies? Where do these rights come from?

Cerpin Taxt explained it to you.

 

[Meghan54]

Still smarting from that self ownage in the Muslim thread? Forgive yourself and move on, no need beating yourself up over it.

Nope, not smarting at all from your scat-for-brains which leads to your diarrhea of the mouth.

 

[MrPickins]

I don't believe this so I have no reason to try and explain it. Do you have an explanation for why cosmic accidents deserve dominion over their bodies? Where do these rights come from?

I really suggest you educate yourself. This is covered in Intro to Philosophy.

Of course, you'd fail the course because you're not actually interested in learning anything.

 

[buckshot24]

I really suggest you educate yourself. This is covered in Intro to Philosophy.

Of course, you'd fail the course because you're not actually interested in learning anything.

Anything but personal comments about the subject?

Where do these rights come from? What are the basis for these rights? What did the founders think?

 

[buckshot24]

Nope, not smarting at all from your scat-for-brains which leads to your diarrhea of the mouth.

That makes it even more embarrassing. You got totally owned by your own link.

 

[thraashman]

That makes it even more embarrassing. You got totally owned by your own link.

Why do you post here? I honestly can't say I've ever seen you make a post that is anything other than inane trolling. You've never made a point that was intelligent and/or coherent. So why do you even post here?

 

[buckshot24]

Why do you post here? I honestly can't say I've ever seen you make a post that is anything other than inane trolling. You've never made a point that was intelligent and/or coherent. So why do you even post here?

I think the bolded part is a tinge of an exaggeration. You've read all 6k plus of my posts?

 

[Blackjack200]

I think the bolded part is a tinge of an exaggeration. You've read all 6k plus of my posts?

That's about 5,900 more than anyone could stomach. Why are you still here?

 

[buckshot24]

What I said: If they made an educated decision that would end up bettering their lives, yes they should.

What you think I said: fuck yes they should! Abortion party! Why don't they have those? I see a new business opportunity! It's where people sit around and count all the money they're going to save now that the fetus I mean baby is in the trash!

:hmm:

I tried to put you on the list but couldn't.

Where have I assumed or hinted any of the drivel you accuse me of thinking you said? I asked a pretty simple question. I didn't see your answer until now.

 

[buckshot24]

That's about 5,900 more than anyone could stomach. Why are you still here?

Not your concern. Where do these rights come from? Have anything to say about that?

 

[Blackjack200]

Not to you I don't.

 

[buckshot24]

Not to you I don't.

Suit yourself.

 

[MrPickins]

Anything but personal comments about the subject?

Where do these rights come from? What are the basis for these rights? What did the founders think?

Educate yourself; I'm not spoon feeding you. As I said, this is Philosophy 101.

If you want to continue arguing philosophy, you should at least have a basic understanding of it. Start with the wikipedia links I posted earlier.

Your problem is that you don't care to learn about anything other than things that reinforce the beliefs you already hold. That is why you are continually called out for your intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not your concern. Where do these rights come from? Have anything to say about that?

The whole modern concept of rights stems from this-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment#Philosophy

 

[MrPickins]

The whole modern concept of rights stems from this-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment#Philosophy

You're casting pearls before swine. :\

 

[buckshot24]

Educate yourself; I'm not spoon feeding you. As I said, this is Philosophy 101.

If you want to continue arguing philosophy, you should at least have a basic understanding of it. Start with the wikipedia links I posted earlier.

Your problem is that you don't care to learn about anything other than things that reinforce the beliefs you already hold. That is why you are continually called out for your intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

No, the problem is you have no legitimate foundation for morality you are giving value to a thing that has no value and acting like that means anything. Put another way you're playing monopoly and acting like the cash you collected has any real value.

Consequentialism isn't a basis for morality it is a system where an arbitrary goal is made and acts are judged on whether they further to that goal or not. It isn't right or wrong just more or less apt to lead to a specific goal namely, "the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers". Completely abhorrent acts can be justified by consequentialism and consistently so.