"Right Wing"

[Kutnupe14]

No, I meant black community. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Margaret Sanger's racist eugenics goals?



Only if they continued their practice after it became illegal. And if SCOTUS hadn't invented a constitutional "right to privacy" out of whole cloth, there would be no need for an amendment. The correct course of action would be for each State to make its own laws, but SCOTUS screwed that pooch.



No, I stated facts. Sperm and egg are gametes, and are not part of the "process" of life. Life begins at the moment of conception of gametes.



I don't think we need to go that far. If the morning after pill were all we had to worry about, we'd be in much better shape than we are now.

I'm familiar with Sanger. I'm pointing out that it's not a black problem, it's an American problem. We're supposed to be getting rid of labels, and being all inclusive right? If guys want me to give up BET, then we're not going be labeling specific demographics. It's an American problem.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

No, I stated facts. Sperm and egg are gametes, and are not part of the "process" of life. Life begins at the moment of conception of gametes.

I get it.

Life begins at conception...........and that's a fact.

Humans and apes had a common ancestor............and that's an opinion.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Only if they continued their practice after it became illegal. And if SCOTUS hadn't invented a constitutional "right to privacy" out of whole cloth, there would be no need for an amendment. The correct course of action would be for each State to make its own laws, but SCOTUS screwed that pooch.
.

This only strengthens my point. You don't think abortion doctors are murders. Sure, you refer to them as murderers. You stated that they were participating in a genocidal holocaust, and yet you're willing to give them a pass, just as long as they stop doing what they're doing? That doesn't jive with me. If I believed as you did, I would DEMAND that those responsible for so much death be held accountable.

 

[jamil]

I get it.

Life begins at conception...........and that's a fact.

Humans and apes had a common ancestor............and that's an opinion.

Oh, let's not get that one started.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This only strengthens my point. You don't think abortion doctors are murders. Sure, you refer to them as murderers. You stated that they were participating in a genocidal holocaust, and yet you're willing to give them a pass, just as long as they stop doing what they're doing? That doesn't jive with me. If I believed as you did, I would DEMAND that those responsible for so much death be held accountable.

It's not a random INGO person's place to prosecute these people. It's society... and at the moment, society is either desensitized to what's happening, or simply don't want to address it.

If there's going to be change, it's going to happen very slowly.

It's not the right climate right now. I'd imagine some breakthrough in science would have to be made to prove undeniably something that advocates of abortion don't want to hear.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm familiar with Sanger. I'm pointing out that it's not a black problem, it's an American problem. We're supposed to be getting rid of labels, and being all inclusive right? If guys want me to give up BET, then we're not going be labeling specific demographics. It's an American problem.

Oh, I agree. But it is a particularly devastating problem for the black community. Those pushing abortion have, from the very beginning, targeted the black community. Something like 40+% of pregnancies of black women in NYC end in abortion. From a sanctity of life (ALL lives matter) perspective, I find that outcome to be utterly tragic.

I get it.

Life begins at conception...........and that's a fact.

Humans and apes had a common ancestor............and that's an opinion.

Are you admitting that a genetically and biologically distinct human life begins at conception, or are you using evolution as a non sequitur as an attempt to avoid the question?

Oh, let's not get that one started.

Not going to take the bait. I'm pretty sure it was intended as a non sequitur, which only serves to prove my point.

This only strengthens my point. You don't think abortion doctors are murders. Sure, you refer to them as murderers. You stated that they were participating in a genocidal holocaust, and yet you're willing to give them a pass, just as long as they stop doing what they're doing? That doesn't jive with me. If I believed as you did, I would DEMAND that those responsible for so much death be held accountable.

No. I do think that abortion doctors are murderers. But I also believe in the Rule of Law. For the past 40 years, society has decreed that abortion is legal. If abortion were made illegal tomorrow, there would be no ethical grounds by which to prosecute abortion doctors for past abortions on an ex post facto basis.

None of that changes, though, that I believe that they *are* murderers, and that they *should* be held accountable. And they will be - only not by society. Their fate is in God's hands.

It's not a random INGO person's place to prosecute these people. It's society...

What he said, also.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh, I agree. But it is a particularly devastating problem for the black community. Those pushing abortion have, from the very beginning, targeted the black community. Something like 40+% of pregnancies of black women in NYC end in abortion. From a sanctity of life (ALL lives matter) perspective, I find that outcome to be utterly tragic.



Are you admitting that a genetically and biologically distinct human life begins at conception, or are you using evolution as a non sequitur as an attempt to avoid the question?



Not going to take the bait. I'm pretty sure it was intended as a non sequitur, which only serves to prove my point.



No. I do think that abortion doctors are murderers. But I also believe in the Rule of Law. For the past 40 years, society has decreed that abortion is legal. If abortion were made illegal tomorrow, there would be no ethical grounds by which to prosecute abortion doctors for past abortions on an ex post facto basis.

None of that changes, though, that I believe that they *are* murderers, and that they *should* be held accountable. And they will be - only not by society. Their fate is in God's hands.



What he said, also.

So you disagree with the Nuremberg Trials. There was no legal grounds to charge any of the Nazis. The winners simply decided they should be prosecuted for their crimes. If you view a person as a mass murderer, then they are always a mass murderer, and should be held accountable. If I held your belief, come hell or high water, I would not rest until they paid for their crimes.

Simply put, if people actually believed abortionists were mass murders, on a genocidal scale, then why aren't more abortion clinic firebombed? If I lived next door to Auschwitz or Sobibor, NONE of those structures would be safe, nor the people that works in the extermination craft. I wouldn't care about the legal ramifications, because I would be doing, absolutely, the RIGHT thing. Either, one doesnt actually believe abortion is murder, or they lack the fortitude to do, in their minds, the right thing. I believe it is the former.

***disclaimer***
I know we have a number of nutcases on the site. Please don't let my post put you over the edge, and you start harming people or property. I was only providing an example.

 

[chipbennett]

So you disagree with the Nuremberg Trials. There was no legal grounds to charge any of the Nazis. The winners simply decided they should be prosecuted for their crimes.

I don't find it helpful to conflate civil crimes with war crimes.

If you view a person as a mass murderer, then they are always a mass murderer, and should be held accountable. If I held your belief, come hell or high water, I would not rest until they paid for their crimes.

I am not a one-man vengance seeker/vigilante. I cannot bring such people to justice. The best I can do, within my sphere of influence and control, is to work to bring an end to the practice of abortion.

Simply put, if people actually believed abortionists were mass murders, on a genocidal scale, then why aren't more abortion clinic firebombed?

Because people who believe that abortion is murder tend to be law-abiding people who respect the Rule of Law? Because such people were raised to believe that two wrongs don't make a right? (See also: my answer above.)

If I lived next door to Auschwitz or Sobibor, NONE of those structures would be safe, nor the people that works in the extermination craft. I wouldn't care about the legal ramifications, because I would be doing, absolutely, the RIGHT thing. Either, one doesnt actually believe abortion is murder, or they lack the fortitude to do, in their minds, the right thing. I believe it is the former.

Well-played false dichotomy. The correct answer is neither A (one doesn't actually believe abortion is murder) or B (they lack the fortitude to do "the right thing"); but rather C: those who believe that abortion is murder also believe that it is equally wrong, morally, to take the law into their own hands, to implement vigilante justice.

***disclaimer***
I know we have a number of nutcases on the site. Please don't let my post put you over the edge, and you start harming people or property. I was only providing an example.

Your "example" was a false dichotomy that basically said that all pro-life people are liars, or don't have the fortitude for firebombing abortion clinics. I take such use of logical fallacy more as a tacit admission that one has a losing argument, rather than an intentional attempt to offend/inflame.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't find it helpful to conflate civil crimes with war crimes.



I am not a one-man vengance seeker/vigilante. I cannot bring such people to justice. The best I can do, within my sphere of influence and control, is to work to bring an end to the practice of abortion.



Because people who believe that abortion is murder tend to be law-abiding people who respect the Rule of Law? Because such people were raised to believe that two wrongs don't make a right? (See also: my answer above.)



Well-played false dichotomy. The correct answer is neither A (one doesn't actually believe abortion is murder) or B (they lack the fortitude to do "the right thing"); but rather C: those who believe that abortion is murder also believe that it is equally wrong, morally, to take the law into their own hands, to implement vigilante justice.



Your "example" was a false dichotomy that basically said that all pro-life people are liars, or don't have the fortitude for firebombing abortion clinics. I take such use of logical fallacy more as a tacit admission that one has a losing argument, rather than an intentional attempt to offend/inflame.

So if you were my neighbor, and the govt made it illegal for black people to live in the nation, and went about forcibly removing my family, you would act? You'd use "rule of law," and cite that you were a "law abiding citizen" to justify doing nothing?

As for civil, and war, crimes. I think most people would be of the opinion that the civil crime is the more egregious... If matched, with the same crime during war.

 

[MisterChester]

A human life exists from the moment of conception. It is not a "potential" life or a "potential" human. Genetically, it is fully human, and genetically distinct from both parents. Biologically, it is living.

Very few people who favor abortion have the stones to admit these two basic facts.

At that point I do not agree. At conception, there is a potential for life. If what you say is true then we ought to send in the national guard to every supermarket to empty the egg fridge, because those are lives and sticking them in a fridge is animal cruelty.

 

[jamil]

I think if we're going to have a discussion about whether abortion is morally right or wrong, people need to keep the arguments sane and not try to pin views on people that they don't actually hold.

So if you were my neighbor, and the govt made it illegal for black people to live in the nation, and went about forcibly removing my family, you would act? You'd use "rule of law," and cite that you were a "law abiding citizen" to justify doing nothing?

As for civil, and war, crimes. I think most people would be of the opinion that the civil crime is the more egregious... If matched, with the same crime during war.

I think you're saying he's saying something he's not saying. He didn't say he wouldn't act. He said he works to bring about an end of abortion.

At that point I do not agree. At conception, there is a potential for life. If what you say is true then we ought to send in the national guard to every supermarket to empty the egg fridge, because those are lives and sticking them in a fridge is animal cruelty.

You're definitely saying he's saying something he's not saying. At least keep it sane. Avoid absurd assertions.

 

[MisterChester]

You're definitely saying he's saying something he's not saying. At least keep it sane. Avoid absurd assertions.

I'm illustrating the point of there is no objective line between life and not life. We may never know. Maybe one day science will somehow determine that, and when or if it does I would accept it.

 

[chipbennett]

At that point I do not agree. At conception, there is a potential for life.

No. Wrong. It is life. Something is living if it undergoes self-directed growth/reproduction, has the ability to sustain existence (metabolism), can respond to stimuli, and adaptation.

If what you say is true then we ought to send in the national guard to every supermarket to empty the egg fridge, because those are lives and sticking them in a fridge is animal cruelty.

Eggs sold in the supermarket are A) not human, and B) not fertilized.

So far, you have made an unborn human analogous to an organ, and have asserted that an unfertilized egg is a living animal. Biology 101 fail, or intentional mis-characterization?

 

[chipbennett]

I'm illustrating the point of there is no objective line between life and not life. We may never know. Maybe one day science will somehow determine that, and when or if it does I would accept it.

Science has a definition for biological life. It creates an objective line between life and not-life. Do you not know that definition, or do you willfully choose to ignore it?

 

[hornadylnl]

So if you were my neighbor, and the govt made it illegal for black people to live in the nation, and went about forcibly removing my family, you would act? You'd use "rule of law," and cite that you were a "law abiding citizen" to justify doing nothing?

As for civil, and war, crimes. I think most people would be of the opinion that the civil crime is the more egregious... If matched, with the same crime during war.

Kind of like hunting terrorists is only moral if the government issues a license.

 

[jamil]

I'm illustrating the point of there is no objective line between life and not life. We may never know. Maybe one day science will somehow determine that, and when or if it does I would accept it.

I know what you're saying but I think you're saying it wrong. There is indeed an objective line between life and not life. In some cases the line might be fuzzy, but we can mostly tell that an embryo is dead or alive.

I do agree that there's not a clear, objective line between when it becomes a person. Otherwise the issue would be much more settled than it is. I do think there is more of an objective range of where the line might be. Is it before birth? We'll I'm pretty confident that it is, and there is almost no argument to the contrary. Is it sometime after conception? Yes, again, I'm pretty confident that it is. I lose confidence rapidly diverging from that range.

 

[jamil]

Kind of like hunting terrorists is only moral if the government issues a license.

Who is the little girl in your avatar? I've seen a lot of people use that now. I don't watch a lot of news. What am I missing? Is it something local to Indy?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Who is the little girl in your avatar? I've seen a lot of people use that now. I don't watch a lot of news. What am I missing? Is it something local to Indy?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...9-daughters-open-heart-surgery-2-24-15-a.html

 

[hornadylnl]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...9-daughters-open-heart-surgery-2-24-15-a.html

Beat me to it. There was also a thread asking people to change their avatars for her.

 

[chipbennett]

I know what you're saying but I think you're saying it wrong. There is indeed an objective line between life and not life. In some cases the line might be fuzzy, but we can mostly tell that an embryo is dead or alive.

I do agree that there's not a clear, objective line between when it becomes a person. Otherwise the issue would be much more settled than it is. I do think there is more of an objective range of where the line might be. Is it before birth? We'll I'm pretty confident that it is, and there is almost no argument to the contrary. Is it sometime after conception? Yes, again, I'm pretty confident that it is. I lose confidence rapidly diverging from that range.

But "personhood" is a legal construct, not a question of biology. It is also generally a tool used to deny rights, and has been invoked in that manner quite effectively throughout history.

That said: if there can be no agreement on basic biology, there is no point in trying to differentiate between "human being" and "person".