Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2016, 07:32 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(17-08-2016 12:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(17-08-2016 06:47 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I don't follow your point.

You're claiming that I am trying to force my will upon others. I am countering that when it comes to deciding when it is legal to kill another human being has always been a societal one. It is the pro-abortion movement that wants to make the killing of human beings a personal decision in certain circumstances. For instance the pro-abortion camp wants to force the people of Texas to allow abortion when collectively those people do not want to allow it. The pro abortion camp is using the court system to impose its will upon others.

The pro-cruelty movement that you belong to wants to force women to carry sick, diseased or unwanted embryos to term, yet they offer no long term care for those babies, thus forcing them to live a life of misery, poverty and under privilege. I’m not entirely sure how you sleep at night, but this seems to be the will of folks down in the pro-cruelty camp. As a cruel individual yourself, you want to force your will onto people who want to be humane and considerate to the human population by giving each and every person a fair shake at a successful and happy life. What you’re doing is nothing short of disgusting. It’s child abuse, and you should be thrown in jail for forcing a child to go through life with severe medical problems and no hope of a good quality of life.

The people of Texas are not being forced to have abortions themselves. They’re just not being allowed to force their will onto other people.

Oh, and an embryo isn’t a human. As a religious person, I’m saying it doesn’t have a soul. By not destroying a sick, diseased fetus, you’re forcing a soul into a faulty body when it could have otherwise gone into a healthy body.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
17-08-2016, 07:37 PM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(17-08-2016 07:32 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(17-08-2016 12:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You're claiming that I am trying to force my will upon others. I am countering that when it comes to deciding when it is legal to kill another human being has always been a societal one. It is the pro-abortion movement that wants to make the killing of human beings a personal decision in certain circumstances. For instance the pro-abortion camp wants to force the people of Texas to allow abortion when collectively those people do not want to allow it. The pro abortion camp is using the court system to impose its will upon others.

The pro-cruelty movement that you belong to wants to force women to carry sick, diseased or unwanted embryos to term, yet they offer no long term care for those babies, thus forcing them to live a life of misery, poverty and under privilege. I’m not entirely sure how you sleep at night, but this seems to be the will of folks down in the pro-cruelty camp. As a cruel individual yourself, you want to force your will onto people who want to be humane and considerate to the human population by giving each and every person a fair shake at a successful and happy life. What you’re doing is nothing short of disgusting. It’s child abuse, and you should be thrown in jail for forcing a child to go through life with severe medical problems and no hope of a good quality of life.

The people of Texas are not being forced to have abortions themselves. They’re just not being allowed to force their will onto other people.

Oh, and an embryo isn’t a human. As a religious person, I’m saying it doesn’t have a soul. By not destroying a sick, diseased fetus, you’re forcing a soul into a faulty body when it could have otherwise gone into a healthy body.

Very well put! Thumbsup

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
18-08-2016, 01:53 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(17-08-2016 07:32 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(17-08-2016 12:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You're claiming that I am trying to force my will upon others. I am countering that when it comes to deciding when it is legal to kill another human being has always been a societal one. It is the pro-abortion movement that wants to make the killing of human beings a personal decision in certain circumstances. For instance the pro-abortion camp wants to force the people of Texas to allow abortion when collectively those people do not want to allow it. The pro abortion camp is using the court system to impose its will upon others.

The pro-cruelty movement that you belong to wants to force women to carry sick, diseased or unwanted embryos to term, yet they offer no long term care for those babies, thus forcing them to live a life of misery, poverty and under privilege. I’m not entirely sure how you sleep at night, but this seems to be the will of folks down in the pro-cruelty camp. As a cruel individual yourself, you want to force your will onto people who want to be humane and considerate to the human population by giving each and every person a fair shake at a successful and happy life. What you’re doing is nothing short of disgusting. It’s child abuse, and you should be thrown in jail for forcing a child to go through life with severe medical problems and no hope of a good quality of life.

The people of Texas are not being forced to have abortions themselves. They’re just not being allowed to force their will onto other people.

Oh, and an embryo isn’t a human. As a religious person, I’m saying it doesn’t have a soul. By not destroying a sick, diseased fetus, you’re forcing a soul into a faulty body when it could have otherwise gone into a healthy body.

I sleep well. I don't conflate issues like you seem to be doing here.. Whether or not prolifers are willing to care for unwanted and or disabled babies has no relevance to the question of is it right or wrong to kill those babies in the womb.

Also the vast majority of babies that are aborted are perfectly healthy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2016, 01:59 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(17-08-2016 12:59 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Nobody wants to make the killing of human beings a personal choice. That is a straw man. People who are pro-choice do not consider a fetus to be a human being, and you have not demonstrated that they're wrong. I get that you consider a fetus to be a human being, but you don't get to define terms for everyone else.

The Nazi's didn't consider the jews to be human beings...they were sub humans not worthy of moral protection. Does not considering a human being to be a human being actually justify killing it?

A zygote is a individual organism. This is a commonly accepted scientific view and not something I have made up.

A human being is an organism of the species homosapien sapien.

Any zygote of the species homosapien sapien is a human being.

To claim a human zygote is not a human being is to engage is retarded thinking. Just be honest and admit it is human being but does not warrant moral protection because it is not a person. Stop conflating "human being" with "person". So many of you pro-abortion folks want to believe you hold the axiom that a human being shouldn't kill another human being unless absolutely necessary but you are not fooling anyone. You just come off as idiots.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2016, 02:04 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(17-08-2016 01:44 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(17-08-2016 12:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You're claiming that I am trying to force my will upon others. I am countering that when it comes to deciding when it is legal to kill another human being has always been a societal one. It is the pro-abortion movement that wants to make the killing of human beings a personal decision in certain circumstances. For instance the pro-abortion camp wants to force the people of Texas to allow abortion when collectively those people do not want to allow it. The pro abortion camp is using the court system to impose its will upon others.

This is the dumbest shit I have ever heard.

There is no "the people of Texas don't want it". Many of the people of Texas do not want it; many others do.

Rights have never been based on "majority rules". We also forced the majority of Texans to serve black people at the lunch counters, to let them vote, and to stop forcing them to do unpaid labor.

The killing of another human being isn't a right. Collectively, we have decided not to prosecute people for it under certain circumstances....except in the case of abortion when the supreme court forced it upon every state.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2016, 06:15 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
Wow are you dense. Not a bit of your thought has expanded, turned grey, or ceased to cast false equivalences.

I already told you there are no rights except what are granted by humans through laws/constitutions. None. We make them all up. Some are effectively universal in free countries; others, we must debate whether they should be a rule at all, and if so to what degree must we impose that rule in order to maximize the good that comes from it (or minimize the harm being avoided).

The killing of another human being certainly is a right, under many circumstances, (war, self-defense, and following a government procedure called Due Process), and we as a society must decide exactly what those circumstances are. The results are in, and your version is clearly decided to be not-demonstrated, and that the right to privacy granted by the first amendment does indeed protect bodily integrity.

I am, as usual, granting the "they are humans with rights" part of your argument not because I agree with it, but because I don't think it necessary to deal with that argument in order to show that your current argument is bunkum.

I do this partially because even on the simpler issue, with that element granted for argument's sake, you nevertheless continue to explode with emotional, rather than rational responses... often in defiance of every medical and scientific expert on the subject. I guess this is the part where you tell us from whence you get the gift of insight that the brightest minds in the nation just don't have?

Have you read Roe and Casey, to even know what they're actually about>

"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
18-08-2016, 06:50 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(10-08-2016 06:30 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 03:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  My position on abortion has nothing to do with religion. I am pro-life because an axiom of my morality is Do not kill another human unless you absolutely have too.

And what are the reasons when you would 'have to' kill?

Still waiting for an answer... Girl_nails

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2016, 07:00 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(18-08-2016 01:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I sleep well. I don't conflate issues like you seem to be doing here.. Whether or not prolifers are willing to care for unwanted and or disabled babies has no relevance to the question of is it right or wrong to kill those babies in the womb.

I am not one to insult people, because it does nothing to help the conversation. I have made maybe 3 insults in my 4 years here. Here is one to add to your count of insults:

You are the most thickheaded, dense, cruel, inconsiderate person to ever post here. Your attitude is despicable and your unwillingness to absorb new information and to integrate it into your view makes you an idiot. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Dom's post
18-08-2016, 07:11 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(18-08-2016 01:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A zygote is a individual organism. This is a commonly accepted scientific view and not something I have made up.

Spermatozoa = potential organism
[Image: d3010-i12295.jpg]

Human egg = potential organism
[Image: human-egg-cell-womb.jpg]

Zygote = potential organism
[Image: Animal_development.gif]

(18-08-2016 01:59 AM)‘Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Any zygote of the species homosapien sapien is a human being.

Why not start with the spermatozoa and egg?

Could it be because if you did all women would be charged with murder everytime they had a period and men ejaculated during night emissions or masturbation?

You do realize that only one spermatozoa survives if any?
A fertile male human ejaculates between 200 and 500 million sperm per occurrence.

You do realize that the female human has between 1 and 2 million follicles of which only about 400 will ever mature and none may ever be fertilized?

Why do you decide life begins at fertilization and not before? Because at all these stages, sperm/egg/zygote all there is is a potential for a fully developed organism. To call any of these stages a “human being” is unsubstatiated radicalism on your part.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Full Circle's post
18-08-2016, 08:11 AM
RE: Marco Rubio...no abortions for Zika infected pregnant women.
(18-08-2016 01:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(17-08-2016 12:59 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Nobody wants to make the killing of human beings a personal choice. That is a straw man. People who are pro-choice do not consider a fetus to be a human being, and you have not demonstrated that they're wrong. I get that you consider a fetus to be a human being, but you don't get to define terms for everyone else.

The Nazi's didn't consider the jews to be human beings...they were sub humans not worthy of moral protection. Does not considering a human being to be a human being actually justify killing it?

A zygote is a individual organism. This is a commonly accepted scientific view and not something I have made up.

A human being is an organism of the species homosapien sapien.

Any zygote of the species homosapien sapien is a human being.

To claim a human zygote is not a human being is to engage is retarded thinking. Just be honest and admit it is human being but does not warrant moral protection because it is not a person. Stop conflating "human being" with "person". So many of you pro-abortion folks want to believe you hold the axiom that a human being shouldn't kill another human being unless absolutely necessary but you are not fooling anyone. You just come off as idiots.

You come off as someone who insists on forcing your arbitrary definitions of words on everyone else. If you're going to make "human being" as all-inclusive as you want to, then the term becomes useless. If you prefer "person", OK, I'll use that word. But by the commonly accepted standards of our society, a fetus is not in the class of things to which our normal laws apply -- whatever name you want to give that class. And this does not make the majority of American people "Nazis".

This is not even close to being a black and white issue. The Catholic church considers sex cells (sperm and ova) to have the same rights as persons, and considers it a mortal sin to masturbate or contracept for this reason. Would you go that far? If not, why not? Even if you claim that "life begins at conception", that is an opinion not shared by most people. A pair of cells with absolutely no semblance of consciousness is neither a human being nor a "person" by any commonly accepted definition of either word. It's just a couple of cells. Conversely, everyone would agree that a newborn infant is both a human being and a person. Somewhere along the line, the fetus acquires the status of human being/person. Good luck identifying the exact instant at which that happens. I can't. I am uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, and the later in the term it happens, the more uncomfortable I am. But I am equally uncomfortable with dictating the moral choices of others in such a fuzzy area.

I have given a great deal of thought to this issue, and there are no nice clear-cut solutions that would be accepted by everyone. It will be a controversial issue as long as humans exist. Disagreeing with you does not make me or anyone else an idiot or a Nazi. Get off your fucking high horse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: