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, 06:46 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 06:39 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Are my posts appearing here?

Yes they are. Your opinion is known. Are you happy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 06:51 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 06:45 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 06:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

Which basically means you believe the mother is the sole determinate and the law just happens to agree with you. So your position really doesn't depend on the law excect that you think because the law is in agreement with you it bolsters your position. Scalp hunters might have drawn the same conclusion and of course they would have been wrong.

What about a Zygote in a petri dish? That isn't in the mother's body. Does she have the right to determine if it deserves moral protection or not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 06:53 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2016 06:59 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 06:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 06:39 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Are my posts appearing here?

Yes they are. Your opinion is known. Are you happy?

So you're just refusing to deal with the implications of what I'm saying.

Got it.

Edit to Add: And this isn't my "opinion"; I am explaining the fundamental basis of the rights granted under the first amendment (and in most Western nations) for a woman to control her body. The fact that you'd prefer to ignore this shines through when you call it simply my opinion. It is clear that you have never read Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Pennsylvania, to find out the basis for this legal determination. I recommend you do so:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

"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
24-08-2016, 06:55 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 06:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 06:45 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Sigh.....no, experience and observation does that its just my moral code and the current law are in agreement roughly.

Which basically means you believe the mother is the sole determinate and the law just happens to agree with you. So your position really doesn't depend on the law excect that you think because the law is in agreement with you it bolsters your position. Scalp hunters might have drawn the same conclusion and of course they would have been wrong.

What about a Zygote in a petri dish? That isn't in the mother's body. Does she have the right to determine if it deserves moral protection or not?

Idiot. Zygotes don't grow in petri dishes.
The people involved make the decision BEFORE that situation arises.
How about you cook up a RELEVANT analogy, and stop with all these IRRELEVANT false analogies. Your desperation is showing, 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
24-08-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 06:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 06:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Which basically means you believe the mother is the sole determinate and the law just happens to agree with you. So your position really doesn't depend on the law excect that you think because the law is in agreement with you it bolsters your position. Scalp hunters might have drawn the same conclusion and of course they would have been wrong.

What about a Zygote in a petri dish? That isn't in the mother's body. Does she have the right to determine if it deserves moral protection or not?

Idiot. Zygotes don't grow in petri dishes.
The people involved make the decision BEFORE that situation arises.
How about you cook up a RELEVANT analogy, and stop with all these IRRELEVANT false analogies. Your desperation is showing, fucknoramus.

Zygotes grow in petri dishes into embryos retard. I already linked a video of a zygote in a petri dish developing into an embryo.

Your so stupid that you spend half a day staring at orange juice cartons because they say "concentrate".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:05 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
You asked me if the current law determined my moral code I said no my experience and observation did and that in this case they are in rough agreement in other areas my moral code may or may not be in agreement with current laws
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
24-08-2016, 07:06 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 06:53 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 06:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Yes they are. Your opinion is known. Are you happy?

So you're just refusing to deal with the implications of what I'm saying.

Got it.

Edit to Add: And this isn't my "opinion"; I am explaining the fundamental basis of the rights granted under the first amendment (and in most Western nations) for a woman to control her body. The fact that you'd prefer to ignore this shines through when you call it simply my opinion. It is clear that you have never read Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Pennsylvania, to find out the basis for this legal determination. I recommend you do so:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

You get a certain set of judges on the Supreme court and the first admendment will mean you have the right to kill gingers.

Anyways we know your position, you hold the woman's right to determine how her her body is utilized to be sacroscant. That is an axiom of your morality. If a mother refused to breast feed a six month old child and it starved because of her refusal, you'd be okay with it. Right?

I can kinda of respect that because it is a consistent position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:08 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:01 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 06:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Idiot. Zygotes don't grow in petri dishes.
The people involved make the decision BEFORE that situation arises.
How about you cook up a RELEVANT analogy, and stop with all these IRRELEVANT false analogies. Your desperation is showing, fucknoramus.

Zygotes grow in petri dishes into embryos retard. I already linked a video of a zygote in a petri dish developing into an embryo.

Your so stupid that you spend half a day staring at orange juice cartons because they say "concentrate".

It's "you're so stupid" not "your so stupid" fucknoramus. Laugh out load
Frozen embryos are never considered human beings, or persons, and everywhere, consenting couples my discard them.

You are a fool, and prove it day after day.

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
24-08-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
That would be neglect same as not feeding an elderly dementia patient in a care home
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:05 AM)adey67 Wrote:  You asked me if the current law determined my moral code I said no my experience and observation did and that in this case they are in rough agreement in other areas my moral code may or may not be in agreement with current laws

Why mention it if it is irrelevant? To me is seemed that you were citing the law to bolster your position. They law doesn't have a good track record of being morally robust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: