Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
What about babies already born that have microcephaly?

Would you all be in favor of infanticide for babies with microcephaly? Why/why not?

When will you all understand that the abortion debate is simply a matter of personal preference? There is no right or wrong answer to this.

Blowjob makes a lot of sense on this thread. He's still wrong in thinking there is an answer to the question, but he's no more wrong than anyone else on this thread who thinks it's (objectively) immoral to deny a woman abortion rights. You're all fuckin' wrong!

Some people like to kill animals and eat them, some don't. It's really no different than the abortion debate. Some people like for women to be allowed to kill fetuses, some don't. At the end of the day, there's no right/wrong answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 08:26 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Some people like for women to be allowed to kill fetuses, some don't. At the end of the day, there's no right/wrong answer.

I don't think 'like' is the correct word choice here.

But, if there is no right/wrong answer then there really can't be a law governing the option.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
21-08-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What about babies already born that have microcephaly?

Would you all be in favor of infanticide for babies with microcephaly? Why/why not?

When will you all understand that the abortion debate is simply a matter of personal preference? There is no right or wrong answer to this.

Blowjob makes a lot of sense on this thread. He's still wrong in thinking there is an answer to the question, but he's no more wrong than anyone else on this thread who thinks it's (objectively) immoral to deny a woman abortion rights. You're all fuckin' wrong!

Some people like to kill animals and eat them, some don't. It's really no different than the abortion debate. Some people like for women to be allowed to kill fetuses, some don't. At the end of the day, there's no right/wrong answer.

Because they are all ready here and are no longer host dependent but breathing and somewhat autonomous and of course it's wrong to actively kill them but I would be in favour of palliative measures and pain control but no heroics in terms of medical intervention and comparing the slaughter of animals for food with this is reducing the whole thing to the level of an international pissing contest. Much of the problem people have with Mr. Heywood on this thread is that a significant proportion of links etc seem to be less than honest and somewhat disingenuous imo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2016 09:48 AM by Fatbaldhobbit.)
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  When will you all understand that the abortion debate is simply a matter of personal preference? There is no right or wrong answer to this.

Pro-choice does make it a matter of personal preference. There is no law forcing someone to have an abortion. It's the pro-life side that removes all choice and forces their beliefs on others.

(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Blowjob makes a lot of sense on this thread.

No. He has displayed an impressive list of fallacies, falsehoods, hypocrisy and other flaws.

(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  He's still wrong in thinking there is an answer to the question, but he's no more wrong than anyone else on this thread who thinks it's (objectively) immoral to deny a woman abortion rights.

Strawman. No one has played the objective morality card. Everyone has simply claimed they were right and vigorously defended their position. Except for one poster in particular, that is...

(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You're all fuckin' wrong!

Of course we are. Drinking Beverage

(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Some people like to kill animals and eat them, some don't. It's really no different than the abortion debate. Some people like for women to be allowed to kill fetuses, some don't. At the end of the day, there's no right/wrong answer.

Another strawman. It's not a matter of "like". Equating abortion and support for abortion with what? Sport hunting? Meat Farming? Eating a steak? I'm not sure what you mean exactly but in any event "like" does not come into play.

There is no single right/wrong answer. The only person who has the right to say whether an abortion is right or wrong is the pregnant woman.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
21-08-2016, 10:04 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 08:26 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Some people like for women to be allowed to kill fetuses, some don't. At the end of the day, there's no right/wrong answer.

I don't think 'like' is the correct word choice here.

But, if there is no right/wrong answer then there really can't be a law governing the option.

Not sure what you mean here, because there can be laws governing anything. I would argue that all laws are simply based on preference. Look at slavery for example. It used to be legal, then the preference of the people changed and it became illegal. One day eating meat might become illegal etc...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 10:08 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 08:45 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Because they are all ready here and are no longer host dependent but breathing and somewhat autonomous and of course it's wrong to actively kill them

Why is it wrong outside the womb, but not inside? I think you're just making things up. If it's about reducing/removing future suffering for the infant/person, why would it matter which side of the womb he/she/it is on?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 10:15 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 10:08 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 08:45 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Because they are all ready here and are no longer host dependent but breathing and somewhat autonomous and of course it's wrong to actively kill them

Why is it wrong outside the womb, but not inside? I think you're just making things up. If it's about reducing/removing future suffering for the infant/person, why would it matter which side of the womb he/she/it is on?
I already explained that, which part of not host dependent do you not understand and don't you fucking dare say I'm making shit up come back when you have a degree in nursing or medicine and thirty years experience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
21-08-2016, 10:19 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
reply in red

(21-08-2016 09:44 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  When will you all understand that the abortion debate is simply a matter of personal preference? There is no right or wrong answer to this.

Pro-choice does make it a matter of personal preference. There is no law forcing someone to have an abortion. It's the pro-life side that removes all choice and forces their beliefs on others.

Yeah, but laws are also based on preference. If abortion was abolished, it would only be because of the preference of those in power. Same as when slavery was abolished.

(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Blowjob makes a lot of sense on this thread.

No. He has displayed an impressive list of fallacies, falsehoods, hypocrisy and other flaws.

He may have done that, I admit I didn't read this entire thread. He asked some good questions though.

(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  He's still wrong in thinking there is an answer to the question, but he's no more wrong than anyone else on this thread who thinks it's (objectively) immoral to deny a woman abortion rights.

Strawman. No one has played the objective morality card. Everyone has simply claimed they were right and vigorously defended their position. Except for one poster in particular, that is...

Yeah, but by reading these posts, it seems that many think it would be objectively wrong (not merely preference) to remove a woman's right to abortion.

(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You're all fuckin' wrong!

Of course we are. Drinking Beverage

(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Some people like to kill animals and eat them, some don't. It's really no different than the abortion debate. Some people like for women to be allowed to kill fetuses, some don't. At the end of the day, there's no right/wrong answer.

Another strawman. It's not a matter of "like". Equating abortion and support for abortion with what? Sport hunting? Meat Farming? Eating a steak? I'm not sure what you mean exactly but in any event "like" does not come into play.

I would argue that "like" is the only thing that ever comes into play when making laws. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

There is no single right/wrong answer. The only person who has the right to say whether an abortion is right or wrong is the pregnant woman.

That simply isn't true, anyone can say that abortion is right or wrong. Of course, any one making such a claim would indeed be mistaken.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
21-08-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(21-08-2016 10:15 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 10:08 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Why is it wrong outside the womb, but not inside? I think you're just making things up. If it's about reducing/removing future suffering for the infant/person, why would it matter which side of the womb he/she/it is on?
I already explained that, which part of not host dependent do you not understand and don't you fucking dare say I'm making shit up come back when you have a degree in nursing or medicine and thirty years experience.

You've explained nothing. Let me ask again.... If it's about reducing/removing future suffering for the infant/person, why would it matter which side of the womb he/she/it is on?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
At work.

Because, Mark, the conversation is a lot more nuanced than the obfuscating and misleading line you've drawn with human skin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: