Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2016, 12:36 AM
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.


Starwman

lets rewrite this shall we

TTA Marco Rubio Are you against abortions in a case where large amounts of suffering the infant will endure based on your desire to impose your will on everyone if you had the chance based not on science or law but on your personal conviction.

Rubio Yup my opinions should be law for all regardless of who's rights i need to stomp on and what well established legal and empirical presidencies i need to violate. And of course i don't don't care about children unless it's protecting them from gays or evolution .

Matt Finn See you smelly TTA commentors are hypocrites and i'm gonna launch a mountain straw man to attack you ALLAH HEYWOOD

TTA Not true we have been consistent yes suffering and poverty are issues in the abortion consideration things Marco Rubio and his gang don't care about .However other considerations are weighed the soverinty of individuals to there bodies and the right of a legalized person to life backed by empirical considerations. Of these tests a new born baby passes without doubt a fetus etc dose not .And it's while the killing of an infant would violate both rights the killing of the fetus violates neither. As well the later violates the later right of the mother and makes her essentially a slave and makes her pregnancy essentially rape.

The question of suffering is important which is why an abortion should have been preformed before it's birth thus the avoidance of this decision needing to be made. (not mention the fact that alternative options exist to an infant that don't exist for fetus that violate the rights of none) something Rubio would love to prevent thus giving no options to end the suffering. we a least give one even if fetal pain exists .

All this concerned it's clear to remain consistent we must legally respect the infants right to it's form. Both legally and morally for the same reason we respected the mothers right to her body we must concern ourselves for it's life the same as the mothers life. And as for poverty that must be addressed by society. As for suffering legal adult euthanasia should be legal in consistency with the right of life and the right of a person to be able end it. And the right to ones body of course this would at least provide some solution to the suffering while respecting the same rights mentioned above. Something by the way Marco Rubio is against under any circumstances again denying another method of ending the suffering as well as again violating the above rights.Not to mention all the anti children policies he's for.

In conclusion our ideal preservers legal empirically founded human rights and gives two ways out of suffering.While Rubio wants to take all that away .

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OrdoSkeptica's post
24-08-2016, 02:22 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(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.

A human organism and a human being are the same thing. A human organism and a person are not necessarily the same thing. When you are under general anesthesia I do not consider you to be a person at that moment. You are still a human organism though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 02:34 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 05:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Because you are a DISHONEST fucktard using a law written to allow a mother who WANTED to carry her fetus to term to say it was damaged, as was pointed out to you. It does NOT APPLY to all cases. I know that's hard for someone with a 5th Grade education to grasp.

You call me dishonest but you left out the title of the bill and quoted it out of its entire context. It is you are who dishonest.

The purpose of the bill to make sure that it was understood that an organism of the species homo sapien that was born alive, in any stage of development is a human being. If it is a human being at any stage of development as the bill deems it to be, it doesn't matter whether or not it is born alive, it is still a human being. The difference is in whether or not the law will recognize it as a legal victim. In the cases where the child in utero is born alive, the law recognizes it as a legal victim(see the born alive act that you cited). In cases where a child in utero is killed illegally, the law recognizes it as a legal victim(see the Unborn victims of violence act that I cited). The law acknowledges that children in utero at any stage of development are human beings.

What you are too stupid to realize Bucky, is that it is simply not illegal for a mother to kill her child in utero. You know in some countries it is not illegal to kill gays. Does that make gay people not human beings in those countries.....obviously it does not. It just that killing gays in those countries is not murder(its still morally wrong though in my opinion).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 02:34 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
A couple of posts back I was kind of under the impression that Matt was simply trying to point out that pro lifers make no distinction between a foetus and a born baby it looks like I have been a bit nieve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
24-08-2016, 02:40 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 06:44 AM)Aliza Wrote:  My position on abortion is first and foremost based on my religious convictions. Jews are overwhelmingly pro-choice.

Religious convictions should have some logical backing to them otherwise you should question them. Religious convictions should be consistent with sound reasoning. If your reasoning is based on what you feel and which way the political wind is blowing and your religious convictions....that isn't a good way to formulate a good moral code by which you view the world.

Start with axioms and go from there. Sometime it takes you to uncomfortable places(for instance my realization that capital punishment is wrong despite my intense desire for it to be right).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 02:42 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 02:34 AM)adey67 Wrote:  A couple of posts back I was kind of under the impression that Matt was simply trying to point out that pro lifers make no distinction between a foetus and a born baby it looks like I have been a bit nieve

Finney is making the same point I initially made which was that Rubio's answer was consistent with his position. He should be applauded for basing his morality on whims and what feels right as so many of you do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 03:41 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 02:42 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 02:34 AM)adey67 Wrote:  A couple of posts back I was kind of under the impression that Matt was simply trying to point out that pro lifers make no distinction between a foetus and a born baby it looks like I have been a bit nieve

Finney is making the same point I initially made which was that Rubio's answer was consistent with his position. He should be applauded for basing his morality on whims and what feels right as so many of you do.

My position on abortion is based on experience and observation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
24-08-2016, 03:48 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 03:41 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 02:42 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Finney is making the same point I initially made which was that Rubio's answer was consistent with his position. He should be applauded for basing his morality on whims and what feels right as so many of you do.

My position on abortion is based on experience and observation.

I really screw up that post. I meant to say He should be applauded for not basing his morality on whims and what feels right as so many of you do.

Anyways, If you have so much experience with babies born with defects or babies born to poverty and that has convinced you abortion is okay, are you also okay with mothers killing their new borns because they are poor or have defects?

If you are not, I would say you believe abortion is okay because a child in utero doesn't deserve moral protection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 04:31 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 03:48 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 03:41 AM)adey67 Wrote:  My position on abortion is based on experience and observation.

I really screw up that post. I meant to say He should be applauded for not basing his morality on whims and what feels right as so many of you do.

Anyways, If you have so much experience with babies born with defects or babies born to poverty and that has convinced you abortion is okay, are you also okay with mothers killing their new borns because they are poor or have defects?

If you are not, I would say you believe abortion is okay because a child in utero doesn't deserve moral protection.

A lot depends how far the pregnancy is along and how developed the foetus is wether its capable of independent existence type of deformity I could go on ad infinitum its not a black and white issue there are many shades of grey and this is the problem with the religious mindset it lacks flexibility of thought Imo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
24-08-2016, 04:32 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 03:48 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 03:41 AM)adey67 Wrote:  My position on abortion is based on experience and observation.

I really screw up that post. I meant to say He should be applauded for not basing his morality on whims and what feels right as so many of you do.

Anyways, If you have so much experience with babies born with defects or babies born to poverty and that has convinced you abortion is okay, are you also okay with mothers killing their new borns because they are poor or have defects?

If you are not, I would say you believe abortion is okay because a child in utero doesn't deserve moral protection.

He *is* basing his position/morality on what feels right *to him*, based upon his religious programming.

We are not okay with the mother killing a newborn because (just as with, for instance, the Age of Consent), we as a society must determine the point, based on science as much as possible, at which certain rights attach. We have determined that it is at or just before birth ("the point of viability"). We are okay with a mother terminating her pregnancy for any reason at any point up to the point of viability because of the reasons I have previously explained to you-- no person, born or unborn, has a right to have their life sustained off another's life without the express and active permission of the other person. Period. Once the lives are separate, different rights attach.

I don't understand what is so hard for you to grasp about this simple distinction.

"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
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: