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, 07:29 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:18 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(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

Well now my opinion of you has lowered because you are now making exceptions to your axiom.

When a woman breast feeds the child attaches its mouth to her breast. When a father feeds a child with a bottle the father has to use it body to feed it instead of doing something else....like playing golf.

You don't really believe bodily control is sacrosanct do you? You only think that when the child is inside the body right? If it is outside then the parents no longer have absolute control of their bodies and it is okay to enslave them. Your position isn't consistent. It is garbage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:35 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
The woman has to get her tits out to do it that constitutes the same thing as using a body like the father using a bottle analogy. This is now clearly just getting into the realms of fantasy I'm not buying into this anymore it is no longer a serious or productive exchange
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:38 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:29 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 07:18 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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

Well now my opinion of you has lowered

Oh, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!





(24-08-2016 07:29 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  because you are now making exceptions to your axiom.

When a woman breast feeds the child attaches its mouth to her breast. When a father feeds a child with a bottle the father has to use it body to feed it instead of doing something else....like playing golf.

You don't really believe bodily control is sacrosanct do you? You only think that when the child is inside the body right? If it is outside then the parents no longer have absolute control of their bodies and it is okay to enslave them. Your position isn't consistent. It is garbage.

I have no idea what you're talking about with this bullshit. The parents don't have to do anything, and can pass the child to the care of others... as often happens, as with adoption, for instance. If they choose to take up the responsibility of raising the child, then they have a legal responsibility to care for it until such time as they can make other arrangements.

Likewise, there is no legal requirement to care for the elderly unless one volunteers to take up the task and then abandons it without making other arrangements. If my mother were to fall ill, tomorrow, and require care, I am under no legal obligation to go to Louisiana and get her in order to feed her, medicate her, etc. However, if I were to do so, and then abandon her, I could be charged with neglect. You are ignoring the critical component of this discussion, as usual.

And this still has nothing to do with someone being attached to another's body against their will. It is wholly dishonest for you to pretend otherwise.

"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, 07:39 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:35 AM)adey67 Wrote:  The woman has to get her tits out to do it that constitutes the same thing as using a body like the father using a bottle analogy. This is now clearly just getting into the realms of fantasy I'm not buying into this anymore it is no longer a serious or productive exchange

Parents are slaves to their very young children but Rocket Surgeon has been very vocal in claiming that one doesn't have to be a slave so that justifies killing the human being served.

Now he is back peddling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:47 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:38 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Likewise, there is no legal requirement to care for the elderly unless one volunteers to take up the task and then abandons it without making other arrangements. If my mother were to fall ill, tomorrow, and require care, I am under no legal obligation to go to Louisiana and get her in order to feed her, medicate her, etc. However, if I were to do so, and then abandon her, I could be charged with neglect. You are ignoring the critical component of this discussion, as usual.

So if a woman commits to carrying a child to term but then later decides to abort because say she learned of stretch marks she is in the wrong? Is that your position?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:47 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So if a woman commits to carrying a child to term but then later decides to abort because say she learned of stretch marks she is in the wrong? Is that your position?

To summarize your position:

[Image: DSC_5593_zpsczvwzcq3.jpg]

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
24-08-2016, 07:54 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(24-08-2016 07:38 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 07:29 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have no idea what you're talking about with this bullshit. The parents don't have to do anything, and can pass the child to the care of others... as often happens, as with adoption, for instance. If they choose to take up the responsibility of raising the child, then they have a legal responsibility to care for it until such time as they can make other arrangements.

The act of passing the child to others require the use of the parent body perhaps against their will....thereby making them slaves. First is requires them to spend time to find someone upon which they can dump their baby on. Second it require them to physically hand the baby over to foster parent.

Either parents have slave like obligations or they do not. You seem to be cherry picking.


Likewise, there is no legal requirement to care for the elderly unless one volunteers to take up the task and then abandons it without making other arrangements. If my mother were to fall ill, tomorrow, and require care, I am under no legal obligation to go to Louisiana and get her in order to feed her, medicate her, etc. However, if I were to do so, and then abandon her, I could be charged with neglect. You are ignoring the critical component of this discussion, as usual.

And this still has nothing to do with someone being attached to another's body against their will. It is wholly dishonest for you to pretend otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:59 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2016 08:30 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Protip :
One more neg rep in a sea of them does not constitute a "rampage", Whiney One.
"The Dark One is a whiny dumbass...seriously he is a dumbass. He can dish it out, but if you dish it back, he gets majorly butthurt and goes on a neg rep rampage. What a dick".

Facepalm
Laugh out load .. Laugh out load .. Laugh out load .. Laugh out load

Sarcasm my ass.

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
25-08-2016, 10:18 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(07-08-2016 03:06 PM)Anjele Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/marco-r...li=BBnb7Kz

And you just know this ass is going to win. I am voting for whoever his opponent is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Exfundy's post
26-08-2016, 05:54 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(23-08-2016 09:41 PM)Aliza Wrote:  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?

I have no problems with homosexuals in regard to sex or marriage. I'm all for letting adults do whatever they want so long as they are not infringing on others' freedoms. I'm also about as pro-choice as it gets. But....I understand the position of prolife.

Some people draw the line at the first trimester, some draw the line at the second, some at the third, some don't make the distinction until the infant passes through the womb, and others are ok with infanticide. Personally, don't think anything magical happens when infant passes through the womb. Anyone who is not a psychopathic murderer is prolife to some degree, we only differ in where we draw the line. I just happen to recognize that everyone forms their own opinion on the matter, and that doesn't make anyone evil as a result.

I'm so libertarian that I think all drugs and even suicide should be legal. I don't care if someone want to chop off their sexual organs, gouge out their own eyes, or even chop off their own head. Just let me do my own thing and I'm fine with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: