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, 05:47 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 05:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 05:17 AM)adey67 Wrote:  What you regard as wishy washy I regard as being flexible.

If a hunter killed a child instead of a deer I don't think the "I was just being flexible" excuse would be persuasive.

Be honest, you have taken a position that the unborn are not worthy of moral protection. But if that is true....then a father should not be prosecuted for murder if he causes the mother of his child to miscarry by punching her in the stomach. He should only be charged with assault because a child in utero isn't a legal victim.

Strive for a position that is consistent. Consistency demands the child in utero deserves moral protection or is doesn't. Not this wishy washy it depends crap.

Some issues are clearly black and white
but I still don't think termination of pregnancy its a simple black and white issue, I know you want it to be but there are many variable circumstances to take into account and the law reflects this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
24-08-2016, 05:47 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 05:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 05:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Perfect example of a non-sequitur.
No one cares whet your opinions are, fool.

(You STILL have not answered the questions posed to you, idiot).
The law is the law. The DISHONEST part here was the YOU imported your legal definition from a law that protected a fetus in a special situation, and did not use the general law. YOU are the dishonest one here.

The law is the law huh? Are you saying that in countries where is it legal to kill people for being gay it is actually okay to kill people for being gay?

No fucktard. The US law I quoted was the general case. The special case YOU quoted is irrelevant. Do try to keep up, gramps. Your idiot comparison of "killing gays" with fetuses is not a valid comparison. A FALSE ANALOGY. Have you ever considered finishing grade school ? Tell the fool priest you get this shit you post it's not working, and you have convinced NO one of anything.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-08-2016, 05:51 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 05:47 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 05:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If a hunter killed a child instead of a deer I don't think the "I was just being flexible" excuse would be persuasive.

Be honest, you have taken a position that the unborn are not worthy of moral protection. But if that is true....then a father should not be prosecuted for murder if he causes the mother of his child to miscarry by punching her in the stomach. He should only be charged with assault because a child in utero isn't a legal victim.

Strive for a position that is consistent. Consistency demands the child in utero deserves moral protection or is doesn't. Not this wishy washy it depends crap.

Some issues are clearly black and white
but I still don't think termination of pregnancy its a simple black and white issue, I know you want it to be but there are many variable circumstances to take into account and the law reflects this.

The Law is actually black and white. Which is not surprising because laws are supposed to be black and white.

The law says a mother or her agents can kill her child in utero but if anyone else does then it is murder. Remember murder is a legal term not a moral one. It means the illegal killing of a human being. Legal killings of human beings are not murders. When Iran kills gays for being gay, that is not murder because in that country being gay is a capital offense. It is still immoral though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 05:59 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 05:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 05:47 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Some issues are clearly black and white
but I still don't think termination of pregnancy its a simple black and white issue, I know you want it to be but there are many variable circumstances to take into account and the law reflects this.

The Law is actually black and white. Which is not surprising because laws are supposed to be black and white.

The law says a mother or her agents can kill her child in utero but if anyone else does then it is murder. Remember murder is a legal term not a moral one. It means the illegal killing of a human being. Legal killings of human beings are not murders. When Iran kills gays for being gay, that is not murder. It is still immoral though.

I didn't say the law wasn't black and white I said the law can reflect variable circumstances that's why we have so many of them
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
24-08-2016, 06:05 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 05:59 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I didn't say the law wasn't black and white I said the law can reflect variable circumstances that's why we have so many of them

Do you believe it is the mother who gets to decide if a child in utero deserves moral protection? If so why should she not be allowed to decide if a child which is born deserves moral protection?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 06:12 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 05:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The law says a mother or her agents can kill her child in utero but if anyone else does then it is murder. Remember murder is a legal term not a moral one. It means the illegal killing of a human being. Legal killings of human beings are not murders. When Iran kills gays for being gay, that is not murder because in that country being gay is a capital offense. It is still immoral though.

Protip -- the law never says a mother can "kill her child". Never. Nowhere ... You are being emotional and dishonest by using those words. You're also being dishonest by posting here. You said you were leaving. Weeping
The comparison of a fetus to a person (born) is a FALSE analogy.
Your gay shit is emotional baggage. (Nice try, idiot).
You can stop with your "murder" reminder ... you are not a smart man, even though you try to impress us. No one has said it's murder EXCEPT YOU.
Protip -- "killing" is also a legal term, you fucking idiot. Tongue

We need a new word for anyone as stupid as Blowjob .... a fucknoramus ?

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
24-08-2016, 06:26 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 06:05 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 05:59 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I didn't say the law wasn't black and white I said the law can reflect variable circumstances that's why we have so many of them

Do you believe it is the mother who gets to decide if a child in utero deserves moral protection? If so why should she not be allowed to decide if a child which is born deserves moral protection?
(adey sighs deeply in frustration puts his head in his hands) She gets to decide within the remit of the law as it relates to her body. A born child is an autonomous being considered a citizen with the rights and privileges of you and I.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
24-08-2016, 06:39 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Are my posts appearing here?

How many times do I have to explain this? The mother ("and her agents"... what the fuck is wrong with you?) alone gets to decide when she's going to continue to support another life in her body, and when to disallow that support to continue. This is true whether the fetus is a human person or not-- if I, a full-grown man with all attendant rights and privileges under law, was somehow sustaining my life on the body of another person, that person would have 100% say in when/if I could continue to keep myself alive using their body. This is a fundamental principle of Western law, starting from the Danelaw/Viking (later called the "Common Law") principles that are now known as "The Rights of Englishmen", and which have evolved into a set of fundamental human rights principles that govern the law in all Western nations (and which, as you noted, do not apply in other cultures), including the US Constitution.

Your claim that we are deeming a fetus "not worthy of moral protection" is a red herring because it is irrelevant, for the purposes of a discussion about reproductive choice, because whether or not they are deemed fully human, full citizens with the full rights of anyone else, it still does not change the legal basis of abortion rights under the first amendment.

There is no fucking right to life when you are sustained by another person's body. That person retains the right to terminate any life-sustaining attachment at any point, whether it be a pregnancy or any other similar situation of life-support based on their body. Period. End of sentence.

So all this harping on about whether or not a fetus is a baby, a person, a human, et cetera, is fucking irrelevant, with regard to whether or not a mother has a right to control of her own uterus.

And FFS, I will repeat, yet again, that something is not right because the law says it is right. It is a question of why that law says what it does-- the question is "what is the basis of that law?" It was upon such an examination of the basis of "moral" laws restricting sodomy that it was determined that such laws were unconstitutional. If we simply said "the law is the law", we could never strike down any law on the basis that it conflicts with a list of fundamental rights.

"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
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
24-08-2016, 06:39 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 06:26 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 06:05 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do you believe it is the mother who gets to decide if a child in utero deserves moral protection? If so why should she not be allowed to decide if a child which is born deserves moral protection?
(adey sighs deeply in frustration puts his head in his hands) She gets to decide within the remit of the law as it relates to her body

So the current law determines your moral code?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 06:45 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 06:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 06:26 AM)adey67 Wrote:  (adey sighs deeply in frustration puts his head in his hands) She gets to decide within the remit of the law as it relates to her body

So the current law determines your moral code?
Sigh.....no, experience and observation does that its just my moral code and the current law are in agreement roughly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: