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, 07:10 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:09 AM)adey67 Wrote:  That would be neglect same as not feeding an elderly dementia patient in a care home

If it is my body my choice why should I be required to use my body to feed anybody? That elderly dementia patient is no longer autonomous if he or she depends on me to survive....therefore by your reasoning I have no obligation other than a purely business contractual one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:12 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 06:53 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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.

Are you insane?

Once a child is born, it is no longer attached to the woman's body as a life-support system, but is a fully-independent being. The baby can easily be nursed by another, or given formula. These are choices the mother can make, but the baby at this point is not attached to her body as a life-support system, so your analogy isn't even close to being on-point.

You're STILL pretending I have said something other than what I've said. I must admit, ongoing cognitive dissonance is difficult to watch, especially from you.

Edit to Add: Your statement about gingers proves to me that you have zero grasp of what the legal basis of abortion rights is, and how the Court comes to such decisions. It's a red (literally!) herring. Knock that shit off.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
24-08-2016, 07:14 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
you bought the law and moral codes to the table and if I was trying to bolster my argument I would have said something like it based on observation and experience and the law agrees with me which I diddnt do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
24-08-2016, 07:14 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.

No, you are making a false analogy. Case #1 involves a zygote/fetus. Case #2 involves a real live human baby. You and Heywood can pretend as much as you want that the two cases are equivalent or analogous, but they are not. A zygote is not a baby, and does not have the same rights. If we can't agree on this point, the whole discussion is a waste of time. Killing a human being/person is murder. But a clump of cells with no brain and no consciousness is not a human being/person.

You can scream "yes it is" as loud and as long as you want. You will not change anyone's mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
24-08-2016, 07:15 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:12 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 07:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

Are you insane?

Once a child is born, it is no longer attached to the woman's body as a life-support system, but is a fully-independent being. The baby can easily be nursed by another, or given formula. These are choices the mother can make, but the baby at this point is not attached to her body as a life-support system, so your analogy isn't even close to being on-point.

You're STILL pretending I have said something other than what I've said. I must admit, ongoing cognitive dissonance is difficult to watch, especially from you.

The baby isn't autonomous. Some one has to take care of it and taking care of it requires using the body. They have to direct their muscle and bones to lift the bottle to the babies mouth.

Are you really that stupid that I have to point that out?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:16 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:14 AM)adey67 Wrote:  you bought the law and moral codes to the table and if I was trying to bolster my argument I would have said something like it based on observation and experience and the law agrees with me which I diddnt do.

So in your mind the law is really irrelevant. You believe a child in utero is only worthy of moral protection if the mother deems it so. Correct?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:18 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:15 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The baby isn't autonomous. Some has to take care of it and taking care of it requires using the body. They have to direct their muscle and bones to lift the bottle to the babies mouth.

Are you really that stupid that I have to point that out?

And that is somehow related to having one living thing physically attached to you as a life-support system?

Feeding a child or taking care of an elderly person is not the same thing as having something physically attached to your body for 100% of its life support.

And yes, you got me, I'm just stupid I guess. It can't possibly be that you're making dishonest and/or wholly-incorrect analogies. Rolleyes

"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
24-08-2016, 07:22 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:15 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 07:12 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Are you insane?

Once a child is born, it is no longer attached to the woman's body as a life-support system, but is a fully-independent being. The baby can easily be nursed by another, or given formula. These are choices the mother can make, but the baby at this point is not attached to her body as a life-support system, so your analogy isn't even close to being on-point.

You're STILL pretending I have said something other than what I've said. I must admit, ongoing cognitive dissonance is difficult to watch, especially from you.

The baby isn't autonomous. Some has to take care of it and taking care of it requires using the body. They have to direct their muscle and bones to lift the bottle to the babies mouth.

Are you really that stupid that I have to point that out?

No he's not stupid you know damn wall in this case independent means cardiovascular and pulmonary self sufficient I believe you are trolling us now and that inadvertently I have been providing you with as source of amusement and entertainment... Not cool dude Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
24-08-2016, 07:27 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
I'm mainly just sitting here trying to figure out what the fuck "moral protection" is.

I mean, I know what he means by it... but what in the hell is it, especially given that I've explained that no person of any age has a right to physically sustain their own life by connection to another person, except upon the ongoing freely-granted permission of the other person.

What "moral protection" would overcome that? Are fetuses to be given a level of protection that exceeds my own legal rights, such that it could use a person's body to sustain itself but I cannot?

"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
24-08-2016, 07:28 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 07:14 AM)adey67 Wrote:  you bought the law and moral codes to the table and if I was trying to bolster my argument I would have said something like it based on observation and experience and the law agrees with me which I diddnt do.

So in your mind the law is really irrelevant. You believe a child in utero is only worthy of moral protection if the mother deems it so. Correct?

The law is highly relevant I am against any illegal abortion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: