You said " I also believe each parent should have a period where they can relinquish all parental and financial responsibility" That is giving your child up for adoption isn't it?
Fact is, right now ONLY women have that option, and right.
Men are simply forced walking ATM's who happened to be sperm donors at one time.
It is a statement yes of your stance, your decision what your opinion will be, which is in conflict with itself. IMO. You had to decide the child was not important.
I dont understand your non understanding of my question. It seems spelled out plainly. I added clarifiers:
In the world of scenarios, does multiple people making multiple bad choices through time (I.E. the reasons they get pregnant, the reasons it may be hard to raise the kid they created) mean killing unborn children is now ok? Later down the road would it be ok to kill if they are less than 1 year old (12 months outside the womb)? 1 month? Maybe the elderly? Would your opinion just be that you believe the system as it exists is flawed and you've come to believe there are other rights that supersede the child's?
You said " I also believe each parent should have a period where they can relinquish all parental and financial responsibility" That is giving your child up for adoption isn't it?
Oh, I understand your question, just not why you're asking me, as it is not connected at all to my stance. There is no logical bridge from my statements to your question, as I've already said we have a right to life. You asking me this question just shows you don't really understand the premise of the argument, that the children do have a right to life, but that they don't have a right to someone else's body to support that life. People willingly provide that life support for around 9 months at a time, and it's fantastic, but not provided by the baby's right to life.
"Killing unborn children" is only okay in that you can't force someone to donate their body to keep another alive. They're pulling the life support that their body is providing. Pulling life support of someone who can't survive without life support isn't murder, whether they're an adult or child. It will never be okay to kill a child that is alive without that life support, as that is murder. The question is ridiculous.
If there was a way to easily transfer the pregnancy to someone who would be willing to have the pregnancy, then we could do that instead. Right now, there isn't, so it's acceptable to have an abortion.
.....children do have a right to life, but that they don't have a right to someone else's body to support that life. People willingly provide that life support for around 9 months at a time, and it's fantastic, but not provided by the baby's right to life.
That right there is possibly one of THE MOST TWISTED and tortured pretzels of whack-job "logic" ever posted on this forum.
Obviously the "endowed by their Creator" part of one of our core founding documents of this nation isn't something so-called "Libertarians" believe in.
Moreover, UNITED STATES LAW, (Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). and 38 individual states laws say that you are dead, (pardon the pun), WRONG in your whackadoodle "logic".
If you murder a woman and that murder consequently results in the death of her unborn child, you are guilty of TWO murders. Accordingly, the law holds that the unborn child DOES have a "right to someone else's body to support it's life." .
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-31-2022).]
Originally posted by randye: Moreover, UNITED STATES LAW, (Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
Originally posted by randye: That right there is possibly one of THE MOST TWISTED and tortured pretzels of whack-job "logic" ever posted on this forum.
Obviously the "endowed by their Creator" part of one of our core founding documents of this nation isn't something so-called "Libertarians" believe in.
Moreover, UNITED STATES LAW, (Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). and 38 individual states laws say that you are dead, (pardon the pun), WRONG in your whackadoodle "logic".
If you murder a woman and that murder consequently results in the death of her unborn child, you are guilty of TWO murders. Accordingly, the law holds that the unborn child DOES have a "right to someone else's body to support it's life." .
You are, once again, proving you can’t follow basic logic.
You have a right to terminate life supporting provided by your body to someone else. You cannot be forced by the government to donate organs, even temporarily.
You have a right to life. Your right to life does not dictate you have the right to my organs.
In the most blunt terms, a pregnant person aborting an unborn child is killing that person, but they have the right to do so because they have bodily autonomy. Someone killing that pregnant woman and unborn child does not have any rights that allow them to do so.
Your failure to comprehend basic logic is also not supported by any laws, as laws are not morality, and this thread is not “is abortion illegal,” but “is abortion wrong?” Do you need me to explain it any further?
Thanks for understanding the point of view and logic behind it, even though we disagree.
It’s not an easy topic.
I remember, when I met my now-wife, she was pro-choice and I was pro-life. We agreed to not abort for any accidents because it was so important to me. Over time, my view on it changed.
CHRISTIANS WANT TALI-BAN LIKE LAWS to enfarce their religion's rules on all others and have a long history of doing so
Your sick "cult" wants schools and Planned Parenthood to enforce your twisted crap without parental permission. Go around the LEGAL GUARDIANS and let the non-doctor with the liberal arts gender studies degree school nurse/health-teacher/orgasm-instructor warp their minds. Get'em young and impressionable. Your sick "cult" has a long history of doing so. Your sick "cult" also doesn't want the PUBLIC to know there are convicted sexual predators in their neighborhoods. Groom'n the young and impressionable. Just like Disney. Sick.
But that's right, this new US Supreme Court Justice will abolish the whole idea/DEFINITION (leftists need to change definitions of words) of what a sexual predator is. Sickos. Change the definition so it's more acceptable and inclusive.
P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C
You don't seem to realize that this topic goes right back to protecting children. Born and unborn. A concept your sick "cult" lacks with the neanderthal size brain that hadn't evolved enough not to know they shouldn't have the "if it bleeds it breeds" mentality.
A-N-I-M-A-L-S...
This also divulges into the other topic of School Choice. Your sick "cult" has "a long history" of not wanting that to happen. Your sick "cult" needs those PUBLIC tax $$$'s to go back to the sick "cult" and it's Teachers Unions. They want the community village one group-think philosophy to raise ALL CHILDREN. So Your sick "cult" will do all they can to block it. See the pattern?
Do the police know your ankle bracelet is off? Oh, my bad. Does your liberal arts social worker know your ankle bracelet is off?
quote
no one is making anyone have an abortion it is a option for those who want to do so but your side wants NO CHOICE NO FREEDOM
There are limits to freedom. Your sick "cult" rides the laws to the point of just within legal limits. How many OPTIONS do you need? How many PLAN-B's? Has your brain evolved to the point of awareness that you're just making more and more excuses? Your sick "cult" likes to talk healthcare, and mental healthcare, but that same "cult" creates the health problems.
If you're fat and morbidly obese, don't cut down on the sweets, don't change your sick lifestyle. Hell no. Let's BURDEN THE PUBLIC. You'll just have TAX PAYER FUNDED "Affordable" Care Act pay for YOUR bad judgement, YOUR bad choice. Chaos. Choices have consequences, but your sick "cult", ALWAYS wants a FINAL SOLLUTION get out of jail free card to save them.
P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C
quote
THAT TO ME IS THE TRUE COLORS OF THE NUT -CONNED
You have no love for anything. Just all pleasure. A society in chaos. You want to "nut" where/when/who you feel, including minors. THAT is your "cult".
Get off you're damn high horse about tali-ban, religion and cults because YOU obviously share the mindset of one.
Oh, I understand your question, just not why you're asking me, as it is not connected at all to my stance. There is no logical bridge from my statements to your question, as I've already said we have a right to life. You asking me this question just shows you don't really understand the premise of the argument, that the children do have a right to life, but that they don't have a right to someone else's body to support that life. People willingly provide that life support for around 9 months at a time, and it's fantastic, but not provided by the baby's right to life.
"Killing unborn children" is only okay in that you can't force someone to donate their body to keep another alive. They're pulling the life support that their body is providing. Pulling life support of someone who can't survive without life support isn't murder, whether they're an adult or child. It will never be okay to kill a child that is alive without that life support, as that is murder. The question is ridiculous.
If there was a way to easily transfer the pregnancy to someone who would be willing to have the pregnancy, then we could do that instead. Right now, there isn't, so it's acceptable to have an abortion.
Actually my question gets right to the point of your view. I dont understand why you dont see that, or answer it. The specifics still go unanswered. Does anyone else understand my question?
Actually my question gets right to the point of your view. I dont understand why you dont see that, or answer it. The specifics still go unanswered. Does anyone else understand my question?
I did respond to your question. I said it would be murder and will always be unacceptable.
I remember, when I met my now-wife, she was pro-choice and I was pro-life. We agreed to not abort for any accidents because it was so important to me. Over time, my view on it changed.
What made you change your mind?
Again, REPRODUCTION ORGANS all part of the REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. It's not an "accident" when you know what the intended consequence is. Get out of jail free! 2nd chance, 3rd chance, 4th chance, etc. The game of chance... though this form of Russian Roulette doesn't involve YOUR brains being blown/sucked out. Life: it's NOT a game. Mentally sick society. Devolution
"Killing unborn children" is only okay in that you can't force someone to donate their body to keep another alive. They're pulling the life support that their body is providing. Pulling life support of someone who can't survive without life support isn't murder, whether they're an adult or child. It will never be okay to kill a child that is alive without that life support, as that is murder. The question is ridiculous.
If there was a way to easily transfer the pregnancy to someone who would be willing to have the pregnancy, then we could do that instead. Right now, there isn't, so it's acceptable to have an abortion.
Sorry you did answer, I was missing it within all the conflict it creates in reason, for me personally.
Because technology hasnt caught up, it is ok to kill an unborn child? Because it takes sacrifice to have a child, it is ok to kill that child? You'd consider killing the unborn baby you created the same as pulling the plug on someone who can no longer live via medical life support, for example someone who was in a horrible accident?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-31-2022).]
Again, REPRODUCTION ORGANS all part of the REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. It's not an "accident" when you know what the intended consequence is. Get out of jail free! 2nd chance, 3rd chance, 4th chance, etc. The game of chance... though this form of Russian Roulette doesn't involve YOUR brains being blown/sucked out. Life: it's NOT a game. Mentally sick society. Devolution
The violinist argument (I knew it was a simple name!) I posted on the first page single-handedly turned me over. The logic was sound enough to convince me.
Sorry you did answer, I was missing it within all the conflict it creates in reason, for me personally.
Because technology hasnt caught up, it is ok to kill an unborn child? Because it takes sacrifice to have a child, it is ok to kill that child? You'd consider killing the unborn baby you created the same as pulling the plug on someone who can no longer live via medical life support, for example someone who was in a horrible accident?
Yes, that about covers it.
I would phrase it differently, of course, but yeah that’s close enough. What conflicted reasoning is there? To me, it’s a matter of a hierarchy of rights. I can’t force you to donate your kidney to me, even if you caused me to have an accident that required me to need a new kidney.
If you don’t believe that’s true, then the implications are frightening. What else does the government control of your body? Can they force you to donate blood? Can they force you to donate organs? Can they kill you to harvest your organs?
I remember, when I met my now-wife, she was pro-choice and I was pro-life. We agreed to not abort for any accidents because it was so important to me. Over time, my view on it changed.
So when did the abortion happen that you're now defending?
Originally posted by randye: So when did the abortion happen that you're now defending?
To my knowledge, my wife has never had an abortion, nor has any woman ever aborted any fetus that resulted from my actions.
If you want to know why I support it, you only have to read what has already been said: We all have rights, those rights are hierarchical by necessity, and your right to life does not supersede my bodily autonomy.
It’s all very simple. Nobody has debated the hierarchy outlined, nor the rights listed. It’s all either thinly related or completely unrelated to the actual argument.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
That is indeed the "caveat" appended to the law(s) but NONE OF THAT nullifies anything that I stated or what the main body of those laws specify.
IF you bother to look at the legislative and legal history of those laws you will see that they ran headlong into a fight with pro-abortion advocates who used the unconstitutional Roe v Wade decision as their principal weapon to extract that concession.
You should have also noted the portion of subsection (1) which says: "or a person authorized to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is IMPLIED BY LAW" the clear language of which absolutely takes the decision OUT of the pregnant woman's hand's if SOMEONE ELSE makes a sufficient legal claim. Example: Jane is pregnant and doesn't want an abortion. She is presently unconscious due to a brain injury and isn't expected to regain consciousness any time soon, possibly not within a year or ever. Other than her unconscious state Jane has otherwise normal brain function and isn't clinically "brain dead" or on life support. Jane and her husband Dick, argued over an abortion before her injury and Dick wants an abortion.
Under the subsection of the law you posted Dick now gets to decided for her.
There is also the inverse of that example where Jane wanted an abortion prior to her injury and Dick didn't. Now Dick gets to force Jane to carry the child to term and give birth.
...
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
Your failure to comprehend basic logic is also not supported by any laws, as laws are not morality,
Do you need me to explain it any further?
1.) As I elaborated above, your whack-job "basic logic" isn't supported by anything, and that includes law OR morality. I've seen better, and more well founded, reasoning from an average high school student.
2.) Our codified laws are absolutely founded in MORALITY and they have been since ancient times. Where the hell do you think they came from?
3.) Your bullshit of "bodily autonomy" and "hierarchical rights" went right out the window with government mandated masks, and vaccinations.
4.) WTF is it with your continual use of the terms "people" and "pregnant person" in this thread? Are you unable to properly determine that only women can become pregnant? The blather that you post around here always contains some sort of nonsensical "woke speak".
5.) After reviewing the sum total of your other recent posts and your posts in this thread I now believe that YOU ARE A "LIBERTARIAN" and I believe that in exactly the same manner that I believe that this is a "woman":
Do you need me to explain it any further?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-31-2022).]
Originally posted by randye: 1.) As I elaborated above, your whack-job "basic logic" isn't supported by anything, and that includes law OR morality. I've seen better, and more well founded, reasoning from an average high school student.
2.) Our codified laws are absolutely founded in MORALITY and they have been since ancient times. Where the hell do you think they came from?
3.) Your bullshit of "bodily autonomy" and "hierarchical rights" went right out the window with government mandated masks, and vaccinations.
4.) WTF is it with your continual use of the terms "people" and "pregnant person" in this thread? Are you unable to properly determine that only women can become pregnant? The blather that you post around here always contains some sort of nonsensical "woke speak".
5.) After reviewing the sum total of your other recent posts and your posts in this thread I now believe that YOU ARE A "LIBERTARIAN" and I believe that in exactly the same manner that I believe that this is a "woman":
Do you need me to explain it any further?
I don’t and didn’t ever support government-mandated vaccines or masks.
Besides just stating you disagree and mischaracterizing what I say, try actually arguing with the logic.
This thread isn’t about laws, and never has been. If laws were the same as morality, why do they change? Why do they vary between countries? States? Cities? Do morals change based on the county lines?
If this thread was about law first and foremost, why have the discussion? The current law is that abortion is a right. But it’s being challenged. How can laws be challenged, if they’re just morality? Why do so many of you disagree with the standing law, if laws are an indication of morality?
This thread isn’t about laws, and never has been. If laws were the same as morality, why do they change? Why do they vary between countries? States? Cities? Do morals change based on the county lines?
If this thread was about law first and foremost, why have the discussion? The current law is that abortion is a right. But it’s being challenged. How can laws be challenged, if they’re just morality? Why do so many of you disagree with the standing law, if laws are an indication of morality?
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but yes laws can easily be unjust and immoral, unethical. Apply your words about challenging law to the time when it wasn't legal to kill babies, and people challenging wanted it legal.
Originally posted by 2.5: Sorry you did answer, I was missing it within all the conflict it creates in reason, for me personally.
Because technology hasnt caught up, it is ok to kill an unborn child? Because it takes sacrifice to have a child, it is ok to kill that child? You'd consider killing the unborn baby you created the same as pulling the plug on someone who can no longer live via medical life support, for example someone who was in a horrible accident?
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: Yes, that about covers it.
I would phrase it differently, of course, but yeah that’s close enough. What conflicted reasoning is there? To me, it’s a matter of a hierarchy of rights. I can’t force you to donate your kidney to me, even if you caused me to have an accident that required me to need a new kidney.
It is understandable yo would phrase it differently, phrasing and avoiding truthful words is a big part of pro abortion initiatives. The conflict to me is using what I consider irrelevant excuses to override one's own concerns,. There was no horrible accident and the baby can survive. On top of that [you] created the baby. It wasnt some strange unfortunate circumstance. The wrongness of killing a child, on either side of the mother to be's belly, doesn't change based on the things I referenced above.
I think it relates to this, when it happens en masse it can be much harder to recognize:
"Dissociative disorders are mental disorders that involve experiencing a disconnection and lack of continuity between thoughts, memories, surroundings, actions and identity."
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but yes laws can easily be unjust and immoral, unethical. Apply your words about challenging law to the time when it wasn't legal to kill babies, and people challenging wanted it legal.
We're on the same page on this, 100%. I am trying to show Randy why his reasoning doesn't apply. He tried showing me why my logic was wrong by posting a law, which is irrelevant to the discussion. When I said laws aren't morality, he went on a tirade about how they are based on morals (irrelevant), and said my logic went out the window with government-mandated masks and vaccines. I assumed he was trying to show inconsistency in my logic, but I don't support those government restrictions on bodily autonomy either, so I said so... And he then said he never claimed I did, but the government did it, so [blank here, because I literally don't know where he's going with this argument now at all].
My comment is directly to Randy. If the comment on vaccines/masks wasn't trying to call out inconsistency in the logic, then it's irrelevant to the discussion. Any argument based purely on the law is irrelevant to the discussion, because laws don't dictate morality. I'm open to discussing holes in the logic, but it seems to me like he wants to take us in any other direction.
It is understandable yo would phrase it differently, phrasing and avoiding truthful words is a big part of pro abortion initiatives. The conflict to me is using what I consider irrelevant excuses to override one's own concerns,. There was no horrible accident and the baby can survive. On top of that [you] created the baby. It wasnt some strange unfortunate circumstance. The wrongness of killing a child, on either side of the mother to be's belly, doesn't change based on the things I referenced above.
I think it relates to this, when it happens en masse it can be much harder to recognize:
"Dissociative disorders are mental disorders that involve experiencing a disconnection and lack of continuity between thoughts, memories, surroundings, actions and identity."
As an example, I'd phrase you as not supporting our right to bodily autonomy, and I'm concerned about what ownership you believe I have over my organs. If you require a kidney, are you allowed to take mine without my consent? Since you don't respect my right to do with my body what I will, I am concerned at what else you believe you can control of me.
The child dies because it cannot survive without life support provided by the prospective mother. It's death, but it's not murder. As science gets better and the time to viability decreases, I do sincerely hope that unborn children's deaths drastically decrease when the mother decides to end that life support.
As an example, I'd phrase you as not supporting our right to bodily autonomy, and I'm concerned about what ownership you believe I have over my organs. If you require a kidney, are you allowed to take mine without my consent? Since you don't respect my right to do with my body what I will, I am concerned at what else you believe you can control of me.
The child dies because it cannot survive without life support provided by the prospective mother. It's death, but it's not murder. As science gets better and the time to viability decreases, I do sincerely hope that unborn children's deaths drastically decrease when the mother decides to end that life support.
I think this is a stretch far beyond the reach of the applicable argument and reprocussions. Stick to reproducing humans. If one sees a human as of no value, worth and having no dignity there isnt much I can talk to them about regarding this topic. Its too late.
Your second paragraph is pretty much a repreat of the one I replied to earlier. I disagree, it is murder. Same as murdering a 1 month old who can't survive by themself. A 6 month old, or a 1 year old, etc.
"The conflict to me is using what I consider irrelevant excuses to override one's own concerns,. There was no horrible accident and the baby can survive. On top of that [you] created the baby. It wasnt some strange unfortunate circumstance. The wrongness of killing a child, on either side of the mother to be's belly, doesn't change "
I think this is a stretch far beyond the reach of the applicable argument and reprocussions. Stick to reproducing humans. If one sees a human as of no value, worth and having no dignity there isnt much I can talk to them about regarding this topic. Its too late.
Your second paragraph is pretty much a repreat of the one I replied to earlier. I disagree, it is murder. Same as murdering a 1 month old who can't survive by themself. A 6 month old, or a 1 year old, etc.
"The conflict to me is using what I consider irrelevant excuses to override one's own concerns,. There was no horrible accident and the baby can survive. On top of that [you] created the baby. It wasnt some strange unfortunate circumstance. The wrongness of killing a child, on either side of the mother to be's belly, doesn't change "
It's not a stretch - it's the exact same thing.
I say a human, any human, has a right to life. I say a human, any human, has a right to bodily autonomy. I say rights only go so far as that they do not force action on another. I have a right to self-defense, but I cannot force you to defend me. I have a right to life, but I cannot force a healthcare provider to provide for me (yes, I don't believe healthcare is a right). Even more topically, I may have a right to bodily autonomy which means I have the right to an abortion, but I cannot force someone to provide me with an abortion. These are negative rights vs. positive rights. I believe in negative rights, but don't support positive rights. Therefore, my right to life does not supersede your right to bodily autonomy. I cannot force you to do anything for my right to life.
You believe in some form of positive right. You believe that an unborn's child right to life means that a prospective mother must provide that life, or at least to the best of her ability. I'm not twisting anything you are saying, that's your belief. Positive rights are a very valid belief - I happen to disagree with them, but plenty of others agree. In other words, you believe your rights can force another person to provide those rights.
It's not a stretch, then, to suggest that your right to life demands that you should have the right to care, which means that you have the right to my kidney if it is necessary for your survival.
You want us to stick to reproducing humans, but I don't know why we need to separate them at all. My beliefs are consistent for all humans, from conception to birth. Your beliefs are not consistent, as you do not support bodily autonomy over an unborn child's right to life, but you do support bodily autonomy over my right to life.
Go read the very first post in this thread. Read the goddam thread title.
Where in the hell do you suddenly get the idea that there are "restrictions" on this thread?
You go babbling faux-legal nonsense about "bodily autonomy" and "hierarchy of rights" and then claim "this thread isn’t about laws, and never has been."
If you don't have defense of your "rights" in the law then DONT HAVE those "rights". It's just more of your silly-ass "woke speak".
You are a perfect example of why I always caution people to NEVER allow a LEFTIST like you reframe an argument..
Once you Lefties get backed into a corner on something you immediately try to shift to something else.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-02-2022).]
Go read the very first post in this thread. Read the goddam thread title.
Where in the hell do you suddenly get the idea that there are "restrictions" on this thread?
You go babbling faux-legal nonsense about "bodily autonomy" and "hierarchy of rights" and then claim "this thread isn’t about laws, and never has been."
If you don't have defense of your "rights" in the law then DONT HAVE those "rights". It's just more of your silly-ass "woke speak".
You are a perfect example of why I always caution people to NEVER allow a LEFTIST like you reframe an argument..
Once you Lefties get backed into a corner on something you immediately try to shift to something else.
If it’s about the law, then the debate was settled in 1973. Abortion is a right. Thread over.
I see that you're ignorant of the recent laws in Texas....and a few other states.....or you'd rather just not acknowledge it.
I see that you're also ignorant of the upcoming SCOTUS challenges to your precious Roe v Wade.....or you'd rather just not acknowledge it.
I see you making patently dumb statements that you can't support like: "I have a right to self-defense, but I cannot force you to defend me."
I also see that you're STILL trying to reframe the argument any way you can or just stop it if you can't....very Leftist of you.
I live in TX. Abortions are not illegal, providers and helpers can just be sued, making it effectively illegal due to the risk.
Challenges were acknowledged earlier in the thread. But since we are just keeping it to the law, we shouldn’t discuss any challenges. Challenges get into theory, and you don’t want us to go there.
Tell me you can’t argue the (high-school level) logic I laid out without telling me you can’t argue the logic.
If it’s about the law, then the debate was settled in 1973. Abortion is a right. Thread over.
1. Settled? Do you not see the arguments I could use against you with this statement? And a right???
I think you need to stop reading the quick blurbs put forward by one certain side about Roe V Wade and read the ruling for yourself.
I would advise against using Google for such things, I tried to find you a link and the first 4 pages at least are just propaganda. Seriously just propaganda.
OK theBDub, so in your opinion, would it be logically OK for someone to allow an infant (under 6 months old) to starve and die?
After all, feeding them is them taking your services.
Charities. The "social safety net" of various Welfare programs to protect low-income Americans from poverty and hardship. That cuts the legs out from this counterargument against theBDub.
(I'm not theBDub but I don't think he would object to my jumping in here like this.)
"Only theBDub is theBDub" (tagline from theBDub springtime dealer's clearance TV advertising campaign)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-02-2022).]
OK theBDub, so in your opinion, would it be logically OK for someone to allow an infant (under 6 months old) to starve and die?
After all, feeding them is them taking your services.
At that point, there is an abundance of other services available. They can relinquish their parental responsibilities without killing the child by giving them over to be adopted.
If a pregnant woman could easily transfer the fetus to someone else, that would also be an alternative to abortion.
Charities. The "social safety net" of various Welfare programs to protect low-income Americans from poverty and hardship. That cuts the legs out from this counterargument against theBDub.
(I'm not theBDub but I don't think he would object to my jumping in here like this.)
"Only theBDub is theBDub" (tagline from theBDub springtime dealer's clearance TV advertising campaign)
100% correct, and I place no restrictions on the conversation, despite what Randy may have you believe.
If laws were the same as morality, why do they change?
Because a minority of IMMORAL PEOPLE, such as LEFTISTS like you, sometimes make or change our laws.
It then becomes the responsibility of moral people to change those laws to comport with the moral values of our society.
If moral people never made or changed laws then Demorat / Leftist SLAVERY would still exist and Demorat / Leftist JIM CROW LAWS and SEGREGATION would still be in effect.
We shouldn't have to explain rudimentary things like this to you like you're a high school kid, "Mr. basic logic",.....but here we are.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-02-2022).]
Because a minority of IMMORAL PEOPLE, such as LEFTISTS like you, sometimes make or change our laws.
It then becomes the responsibility of moral people to change those laws to comport with the moral values of our society.
If moral people never made or changed laws then Demorat / Leftist SLAVERY would still exist and Demorat / Leftist JIM CROW LAWS and SEGREGATION would still be in effect.
We shouldn't have to explain rudimentary things like this to you like you're a high school kid, "Mr. basic logic",.....but here we are.
Ahh, I forgot that slavery was illegal at the founding of the country.
Lol, you still haven’t argued with my logic. ‘Round and ‘round we go, Randy still not able to engage in an actual discussion.
Topic Closed
Devolution
