Republicans will stand up on guns but not abortion

[IndyDave1776]

Do you have anything you want to discuss?

I was just having a hard time fitting your previous post into the discussion.

 

[LEaSH]

You are a biological occurrence. Should I support your execution at the whim of another so long as that person is not an agent of government?

You still haven't told me why a woman should be able to control much of the rest of a man's life over consequences for which she is equally culpable.

I didn't realize you needed me to tell you that a woman should not control a man's life. You're referring to a sperm donor, correct?

 

[LEaSH]

Right, so you're advocating the woman be allowed to execute her unborn child. Same thing.

No. It is not.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I didn't realize you needed me to tell you that a woman should not control a man's life. You're referring to a sperm donor, correct?

Do you mean that in the narrow sense or in the sense of a man who sired a child he has no intention of supporting? Two widely different answers depending on the case.

 

[LEaSH]

That's the best you've got? If I believe we are entitled to the unalienable right to life, that makes me an authoritarian, because you believe unborn children do not, are you in favor of infanticide?

I'm not in favor of infanticide. I'm saying I'm pro-choice. You can call me pro-death if it makes you feel better, but you're wrong.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Protect All Human Life

 

[LEaSH]

Do you mean that in the narrow sense or in the sense of a man who sired a child he has no intention of supporting? Two widely different answers depending on the case.

I the manner that you've presented the previous. When the woman wants to control the life of the man that impregnated her.

I don't believe he should be let off the hook - if was duped - then he is stupid. But no, control over the life of the man, his earnings or his liberty.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not in favor of infanticide. I'm saying I'm pro-choice. You can call me pro-death if it makes you feel better, but you're wrong.

Oh. I thought we were jumping to outlandish conclusions. You ridiculously asserted that those that believe all children should have the right to life were authoritarians. So, logically I assumed, based on that we could just as ridiculously assert if you favored abortion you also favored infanticide.

 

[Degtyaryov]

How many rape victims get pregnant each year?

Something like 32,000, IIRC.

 

[LEaSH]

Oh. I thought we were jumping to outlandish conclusions. You ridiculously asserted that those that believe all children should have the right to life were authoritarians. So, logically I assumed, based on that we could just as ridiculously assert if you favored abortion you also favored infanticide.

I'm outlandish and ridiculous (according to you).

You can't have a civil discussion about anything can you?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm outlandish and ridiculous (according to you).

You can't have a civil discussion about anything can you?

Why yes I can.

Please explain your statement of how somebody that wants all innocent life, no matter how young, to have a chance at life, is authoritarian. Or did I somehow misread that post?

 

[Degtyaryov]

You are picking up the battle cry of the radical feminists. I am not even going to consider this argument that men should be excluded from the discussion until I here a way for men to likewise exclude themselves from the consequences. If a woman should be able to walk away from a pregnancy without the consent of anyone else and unilaterally disavow any responsibility for the consequences of her actions, the man involved likewise should be able to walk away without two decades of invoices for a woman's decision to keep the child.

The feminists always come back to the argument that the man had his choice when he had sex. That is a two-way street. Either the choice is exercised with a zipper or it is retroactive, but the double standard gets extremely tiresome.

Believe it or not I completely agree that the double standard is absurd and should be done away with, I just reach the opposite conclusion. I think that at the time paternity is decided, the father should be given the option of choosing whether he wants to be a part of the newborn's life. If so, the rules apply as they do now. If not, then he's off the hook financially and is banned from ever contacting it. The problem that this situation gives rise to, though, is that then we either have a massive increase of the number of people on welfare and other entitlements, or let natural selection take over and have babies/women dying of starvation and easily preventable diseases.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Believe it or not I completely agree that the double standard is absurd and should be done away with, I just reach the opposite conclusion. I think that at the time paternity is decided, the father should be given the option of choosing whether he wants to be a part of the newborn's life. If so, the rules apply as they do now. If not, then he's off the hook financially and is banned from ever contacting it. The problem that this situation gives rise to, though, is that then we either have a massive increase of the number of people on welfare and other entitlements, or let natural selection take over and have babies/women dying of starvation and easily preventable diseases.

I like this response. While we have very different perspectives on right and proper, you apply yours to all involved with equality and acknowledge the potential consequences which are not necessarily easy to resolve.

 

[LEaSH]

Why yes I can.

Please explain your statement of how somebody that wants all innocent life, no matter how young, to have a chance at life, is authoritarian. Or did I somehow misread that post?

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

If abortion kills a living being or a something considered to be a living being, up to a certain stage that no human brain can possibly know... It's still no concern of mine.

You can concern yourself with the matter and vote for government that may or may not legislate your wish to control the uterus of a woman. With the persuasion of force, if that's what you'd like to see happen.

If abortion were to be outlawed (and it will never be), that would be an instance of authoritarianism.

You don't like it at all. I'm no big fan of abortion either, but I truly hate when the government decides what is factually moral. Because terminating of a pregnancy is not immoral in my eyes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

If abortion kills a living being or a something considered to be a living being, up to a certain stage that no human brain can possibly know... It's still no concern of mine.

You can concern yourself with the matter and vote for government that may or may not legislate your wish to control the uterus of a woman. With the persuasion of force, if that's what you'd like to see happen.

If abortion were to be outlawed (and it will never be), that would be an instance of authoritarianism.

You don't like it at all. I'm no big fan of abortion either, but I truly hate when the government decides what is factually moral. Because terminating of a pregnancy is not immoral in my eyes.

Thanks for the little jab there...what was you said about a civil discussion? Anyway...

I disagree.

Why take a chance on when the point "life begins"? There are all sorts of tests that are kicked around to describe when the correct point in time is. They're all subject to faulty science, except one: at conception. At that point in time, all that is required to create a human life is brought together except for time and development.

Try this thought experiment: pick whatever time in the child's development, in your mind, the child becomes a child. It may be the first time it kicks, the point in time when it is "viable" outside the womb, or whatever...Well, what was it just one millisecond before? Then what was it a millisecond before that? I suggest when you think about it, you'll likely conclude it is at conception. Not based on religion or applying your morality on the woman's uterus or whatever.

And once you arrive at that conclusion, that conception has taken place, a human life has been created. Once you believe that, any intentional action to end that life will be seen as murder. And if you believe that the life is human and that all human life is valuable, no matter how it came to be, the woman no longer has the right to do whatever she wants to her uterus for whatever she does, she is doing it to a unique human being.

And to another one of your points, the government does not decide what is moral. The people that elect the government decides that. We as the electors elect those that best reflect our own morality--even those that claim no structured moral belief structure. And I'd rather be part of a society that regards all innocent human life, no matter how young or how it came into existence, to possess the unalienable right to life. I'd rather default to the safest position, to ensure the most people possible get a chance to live.

 

[LEaSH]

OK, so you believe life is some sort of supernatural miracle. I do not.

I'd fight to the death to protect any woman's right to choose. I will perform back-alley-coat-hanger abortions for the resistance if need be. I doubt I'll have to, but by golly I'll do it.

You keep voting for the unelectable. Keep at it. We'll surely get Hillary in there next time with voters like you at the polls.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

OK, so you believe life is some sort of supernatural miracle. I do not.

How foolish I was when I accepted you admonishment for a civil discussion.

How is the moment of conception some sort of supernatural miracle?

I'd fight to the death to protect any woman's right to choose. I will perform back-alley-coat-hanger abortions for the resistance if need be. I doubt I'll have to, but by golly I'll do it.

I believe you. And we're led to believe it's the religious anti-abortion zealots that will kill to advance their agenda.

You keep voting for the unelectable. Keep at it. We'll surely get Hillary in there next time with voters like you at the polls.

What an absurd conclusion. We've got the president of your dreams then. We've got the guy that thinks a woman's right to choose is so paramount, he even thinks any child that survives a partial birth abortion should be killed. Seems to me you'd be OK with Hilary...she's all for abortion too.

Good night Leash.

 

[HoughMade]

Personally, I think that government outlawing anything is an authoritarian establishment of morality. We should be able to do whatever we want, all the time, in all circumstances.

- insert purple where you need to....but this "can't legislate morality" pap is tiresome. True, you can't get people to believe something based on a law, but changing beliefs is not the point. EVERY law is a statement of morality. It just seems like people cry "legislating morality" when it's a law they don't support, but are not-to-strangely silent when it's a law they believe in.

 

[zippy23]

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

If abortion kills a living being or a something considered to be a living being, up to a certain stage that no human brain can possibly know... It's still no concern of mine.

You can concern yourself with the matter and vote for government that may or may not legislate your wish to control the uterus of a woman. With the persuasion of force, if that's what you'd like to see happen.

If abortion were to be outlawed (and it will never be), that would be an instance of authoritarianism.

You don't like it at all. I'm no big fan of abortion either, but I truly hate when the government decides what is factually moral. Because terminating of a pregnancy is not immoral in my eyes.

It would not be authoritarianism. We outlaw murder right now, is that authoritarianism? They just dont define abortion as murder, they define it as a woman's choice. You are sitting there typing on your computer, because your mom didnt kill you, its not terminating a pregnancy, its that she didnt kill you. So the gov't shouldnt decide what is "factually moral." what are laws based on then? Right and wrong? We pass laws making stealing illegal, stealing is morally wrong. A countries laws are based on what they feel is morally wrong if the people rule the country. If the gov't rules it they do what they want regardless of what the people want, that is authoritarianism, as is happening now. Abortion should concern you, it is the ending of a life for the simple fact that the mom doesnt wanna raise the kid. that is pure sickness. Its as simple as not wanting to accept the consequences of your decisions. It should be everyones concern as it involves denying a child their life. One thing i think is absolutely crazy is that most people who believe abortion is ok are liberals. They are the same people that say they are the party of compassion. They will kill babies(even after the birth as obama has voted for) but they will not put a murdering criminal to death. He will get some years eating 3 meals a day, having full health care and a workout facility paid for by the taxpayer, then let out. This is true insanity. innocent babies should die while evil guilty criminals should live. This is, i believe, the true measure of how disgusting our society has become. No wonder the country is crumbling, and not standing up for the lives of babies is sad to me.