Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2016, 08:37 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Let's hypothetically change the debate then. Should we allow infanticide for zika infected babies?
[...]
Again, if the reason we want Rubio to bend is due to suffering and money, couldn't that same exact argument be made in the case of infanticide? Some might ask the question "Couldn't we make an exception for infanticide regarding zika babies?"

I shall here quote my earlier comment, where I addressed this issue. Emphasis in bold.

(23-08-2016 07:03 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I have certainly been consistent in pointing out that it does not matter if the fetus is a human, in terms of rights under law, but as Bucky was kind enough to spell out for us, there has never been a point where a fetus has been considered to be a human being with attached rights, other than those conveyed upon it by the mother. There is no precedent for the "Pro-Life" position, in law or culture. The born have rights; the developing fetus does not, and never has.

It is the "Pro-Life" who must make their case for why we should consider a fetus a full human being with attached rights, and I don't think they're even close to making their case, rather than bleating "but it's a baaaaaaaaby!" and variations thereupon. If we wanted to euthanize a born person because of their genetic (or in this case virally-altered genetic) deformities, the onus would be upon us to provide a reason to change the law and tradition regarding the rights of our fellow citizens.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
23-08-2016, 09:06 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-08-2016 07:03 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Matt,

I don't see the inconsistency; can you point it out to me again, more specifically?

Since you insist on speaking to us as if we're not as intelligent, perhaps it would help to type slowly and use smaller words, to be sure we get your meaning.

We're not saying something is right or not because it's the law. We're saying that we think the law defines it well, and that the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job in this case of defining things in a reasonable way. Most of the specific legal discussions were the result of Blowjob's attempt to insist that the law was on his side, in this discussion, when it obviously is not. It was a valid counter-point, and so I miss the reasoning behind your objection to our objections.

I have certainly been consistent in pointing out that it does not matter if the fetus is a human, in terms of rights under law, but as Bucky was kind enough to spell out for us, there has never been a point where a fetus has been considered to be a human being with attached rights, other than those conveyed upon it by the mother. There is no precedent for the "Pro-Life" position, in law or culture. The born have rights; the developing fetus does not, and never has.

It is the "Pro-Life" who must make their case for why we should consider a fetus a full human being with attached rights, and I don't think they're even close to making their case, rather than bleating "but it's a baaaaaaaaby!" and variations thereupon. If we wanted to euthanize a born person because of their genetic (or in this case virally-altered genetic) deformities, the onus would be upon us to provide a reason to change the law and tradition regarding the rights of our fellow citizens.

So, I ask again: where is the inconsistency?

Let's hypothetically change the debate then. Should we allow infanticide for zika infected babies?

We could even have a thread titled, RS....no infanticide for zika infected

Unless I'm mistaken, infanticide is legal in some countries in some circumstances. In those countries they could be having the same debate but instead of talking about abortion, they could be talking about infanticide. Perhaps some citizens would be opposed to infanticide even in cases of zika, those would be the rubio's of that country. The prochoicers here want Rubio to bend (make an exception) on abortions, but they themselves wouldn't bend on infanticide.

Again, if the reason we want Rubio to bend is due to suffering and money, couldn't that same exact argument be made in the case of infanticide? Some might ask the question "Couldn't we make an exception for infanticide regarding zika babies?"

You just have to realize that Rubio wants to avoid killing fetuses for the very same reason you want to avoid killing newborns. He considers them to be humans and he doesn't want to kill them. It doesn't make him an evil bastard IMO.

Ps, I didn't mean to imply you were stupid.

I can get into further later, don't have much time now.
Thank you for clarifying your position Matt, I understand where you're coming from and the points you are trying to make much better for reading this cheers mate Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
23-08-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-08-2016 07:03 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Matt,

I don't see the inconsistency; can you point it out to me again, more specifically?

Since you insist on speaking to us as if we're not as intelligent, perhaps it would help to type slowly and use smaller words, to be sure we get your meaning.

We're not saying something is right or not because it's the law. We're saying that we think the law defines it well, and that the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job in this case of defining things in a reasonable way. Most of the specific legal discussions were the result of Blowjob's attempt to insist that the law was on his side, in this discussion, when it obviously is not. It was a valid counter-point, and so I miss the reasoning behind your objection to our objections.

I have certainly been consistent in pointing out that it does not matter if the fetus is a human, in terms of rights under law, but as Bucky was kind enough to spell out for us, there has never been a point where a fetus has been considered to be a human being with attached rights, other than those conveyed upon it by the mother. There is no precedent for the "Pro-Life" position, in law or culture. The born have rights; the developing fetus does not, and never has.

It is the "Pro-Life" who must make their case for why we should consider a fetus a full human being with attached rights, and I don't think they're even close to making their case, rather than bleating "but it's a baaaaaaaaby!" and variations thereupon. If we wanted to euthanize a born person because of their genetic (or in this case virally-altered genetic) deformities, the onus would be upon us to provide a reason to change the law and tradition regarding the rights of our fellow citizens.

So, I ask again: where is the inconsistency?

Let's hypothetically change the debate then. Should we allow infanticide for zika infected babies?

We could even have a thread titled, RS....no infanticide for zika infected

Unless I'm mistaken, infanticide is legal in some countries in some circumstances. In those countries they could be having the same debate but instead of talking about abortion, they could be talking about infanticide. Perhaps some citizens would be opposed to infanticide even in cases of zika, those would be the rubio's of that country. The prochoicers here want Rubio to bend (make an exception) on abortions, but they themselves wouldn't bend on infanticide.

Again, if the reason we want Rubio to bend is due to suffering and money, couldn't that same exact argument be made in the case of infanticide? Some might ask the question "Couldn't we make an exception for infanticide regarding zika babies?"

You just have to realize that Rubio wants to avoid killing fetuses for the very same reason you want to avoid killing newborns. He considers them to be humans and he doesn't want to kill them. It doesn't make him an evil bastard IMO.

Ps, I didn't mean to imply you were stupid.

I can get into further later, don't have much time now.

But no matter what happens, it's not "killing fetuses". "Killing" is not a correct word, and your analogy is false. If Rubio doesn't approve of abortion, then he shouldn't have one. Abortion is legal, and he doesn't get to make that decision for anyone but himself.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-08-2016, 12:52 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 07:36 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 02:02 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Again my position is based on logic. An axiom of my morality in simplistic terms is "Do not kill another human being unless you have too". A human zygote is a human being. I have provided links showing that this isn't just my opinion but a consensus of science.

Bullshit. Your links show only that scientists define a zygote as a human "organism". You, and only you, assert that this is the same thing as a "human being". "Human being", as Loom has repeatedly pointed out, is a loaded term that means much more (to everyone except you) than the clinical term "human organism". You are equivocating. And as long as you continue to do so, you are being intellectually dishonest. You have "shown" or "proven" nothing. You are merely making assertions. We are not compelled to accept your assertions.


by Morining Wood links definition a tumor could be a human being it has human DNA and is alive same goes for a sperm a skin cell

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2016, 01:01 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
I don't know if this has been talked about, but I read an article this morning about how fucked up Zika is....while not the article I read it goEs into some detail.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...082216.php


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
23-08-2016, 02:01 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 12:52 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  
(23-08-2016 07:36 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Bullshit. Your links show only that scientists define a zygote as a human "organism". You, and only you, assert that this is the same thing as a "human being". "Human being", as Loom has repeatedly pointed out, is a loaded term that means much more (to everyone except you) than the clinical term "human organism". You are equivocating. And as long as you continue to do so, you are being intellectually dishonest. You have "shown" or "proven" nothing. You are merely making assertions. We are not compelled to accept your assertions.


by Morining Wood links definition a tumor could be a human being it has human DNA and is alive same goes for a sperm a skin cell
I'm always telling him that when he swallows my cum he's both a murderer and cannibal Laugh out load Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
23-08-2016, 02:07 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 01:01 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I don't know if this has been talked about, but I read an article this morning about how fucked up Zika is....while not the article I read it goEs into some detail.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...082216.php

Though Blowme can't figure it out...that's what this thread is about. No abortions for Zika infected fetuses says Blowme's boyfriend Rubio. It doesn't matter how horrifying the effects.

He's not going to read this article, or any other, because he's Blowme and he already knows everything.

Anything else is just whimsical.

And he still won't explain what he means exactly by 'have to kill' another human being.

Because he can't.

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
23-08-2016, 07:37 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
TTA: Hi rubio, even though you're pro-life regarding abortion, don't you think you should make an exception since there's a good chance the infant will suffer and cost a lot of money if allowed to live?

Rubio: No, I still don't want to terminate the life of a fetus.



Person x: Hi TTA, even though you're pro-life regarding infanticide, don't you think you should make an exception since there's a good chance the infant will suffer and cost a lot of money if allowed to live?

TTA: No, I still don't want to terminate the life of a newborn. I want to Rubio to change his principles, but I don't want to change mine. When I cited the pain and suffering and financial burden, I was actually being dishonest becuase no one decides whether or not to euthanize a human without his/her consent based on possible future suffering and financial burden. In reality, I just wanted to demonize Rubio since he doesn't actually care about human lives, he just wants to control women's reproductive organs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
23-08-2016, 08:08 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 07:37 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  TTA: Hi rubio, even though you're pro-life regarding abortion, don't you think you should make an exception since there's a good chance the infant will suffer and cost a lot of money if allowed to live?

Rubio: No, I still don't want to terminate the life of a fetus.



Person x: Hi TTA, even though you're pro-life regarding infanticide, don't you think you should make an exception since there's a good chance the infant will suffer and cost a lot of money if allowed to live?

TTA: No, I still don't want to terminate the life of a newborn. I want to Rubio to change his principles, but I don't want to change mine. When I cited the pain and suffering and financial burden, I was actually being dishonest becuase no one decides whether or not to euthanize a human without his/her consent based on possible future suffering and financial burden. In reality, I just wanted to demonize Rubio since he doesn't actually care about human lives, he just wants to control women's reproductive organs.

Matt, you are making a generalized, imaginary argument regarding all abortions and not Zika infants/fetuses, bad form.

This is the topic of the OP
[Image: 635981085184619680-AP-ZIKA-BIRTH-DEFECTS...ideo-still]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2016, 09:41 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2016 08:43 AM by Aliza.)
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 07:37 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  TTA: Hi rubio, even though you're pro-life regarding abortion, don't you think you should make an exception since there's a good chance the infant will suffer and cost a lot of money if allowed to live?

Rubio: No, I still don't want to terminate the life of a fetus.



Person x: Hi TTA, even though you're pro-life regarding infanticide, don't you think you should make an exception since there's a good chance the infant will suffer and cost a lot of money if allowed to live?

TTA: No, I still don't want to terminate the life of a newborn. I want to Rubio to change his principles, but I don't want to change mine. When I cited the pain and suffering and financial burden, I was actually being dishonest becuase no one decides whether or not to euthanize a human without his/her consent based on possible future suffering and financial burden. In reality, I just wanted to demonize Rubio since he doesn't actually care about human lives, he just wants to control women's reproductive organs.

Matt Finney,

I realize this is a bit off topic, but do you believe homosexuals should be allowed to have sex with people of the same gender?

Edited to add: Why do you believe what you believe about this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: