• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Planned Infanticide[W:17]

Lursa said:
Your lack of a ability to properly process the words does not change their meaning.



I realize that you wont admit you are wrong but you should at least stop so blatantly displaying it for others, lol.
Click to expand...

The fact remains that your favorite comparison you employ for those you hate is subhuman property. Your peers even use language suggesting pests to be exterminated.

In that regard your hate for the unborn is consistent with numerous hate movements throughout history.
 
JayDubya said:
The fact remains that your favorite comparison you employ for those you hate is subhuman property.
Click to expand...

Such fact does not exist except in your imagination...certainly not on these forum pages.
 
JayDubya said:
Post 103.
Click to expand...

That's a valid reminder, thank you:

Lursa said:
The lie that not valuing the unborn the same as the born=hate is one of the clear demonstrations of his singularly flexibile semantics.

Funny, I dont value dogs the same as born people but I sure dont hate them.

*cue the obligatory wail: you are comparing babies to dogs!!!!!* No I'm not, I'm comparing a personal value for something to hating that thing.
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
That's a valid reminder, thank you:
Click to expand...

Yes it is a valid reminder of that time you compared the humans you hate to dogs.
 
JayDubya said:
Yes it is a valid reminder of that time you compared the humans you hate to dogs.
Click to expand...

Wait, now you believe I hate all people, not just the unborn?

Lursa said:
The lie that not valuing the unborn the same as the born=hate is one of the clear demonstrations of his singularly flexibile semantics.

Funny, I dont value dogs the same as born people but I sure dont hate them.

*cue the obligatory wail: you are comparing babies to dogs!!!!!* No I'm not, I'm comparing a personal value for something to hating that thing.
Click to expand...


LMAO, you should have quit while you were behind. :lamo
 
Lursa said:
Wait, now you believe I hate all people, not just the unborn?




LMAO, you should have quit while you were behind. :lamo
Click to expand...

Please refrain from dishonesty whenever possible. Now you're just being ridiculous. Do you even need me to point out why you're wrong this time, or can you apply a little vigor and determine it for yourself?
 
JayDubya said:
Please refrain from dishonesty whenever possible. Now you're just being ridiculous. Do you even need me to point out why you're wrong this time, or can you apply a little vigor and determine it for yourself?
Click to expand...

Please point out the dishonesty on my part? I clearly referred to people (by definition, 'born'). So which humans did you imagine I was hating again?

JayDubya said:
Yes it is a valid reminder of that time you compared the humans you hate to dogs.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
The lie that not valuing the unborn the same as the born=hate is one of the clear demonstrations of his singularly flexibile semantics.

Funny, I dont value dogs the same as born people but I sure dont hate them.

*cue the obligatory wail: you are comparing babies to dogs!!!!!* No I'm not, I'm comparing a personal value for something to hating that thing.
Click to expand...

LIke I wrote, you should have quit while you were behind.
 
Your opening premise was that you don't hate the unborn.

You then stated, as a point of comparison, that you don't value dogs the same way you value people.

Your meaning there is clear and indisputable - you were comparing the humans you support discrimination against to dogs.

You are most assuredly not comparing dogs to those humans with current legal personhood; in fact, you are contrasting their legal status.


None of this helps you demonstrate your premise of course; it's just someone already deep in a hole digging further for no good reason.
 
JayDubya said:
Your opening premise was that you don't hate the unborn.

You then stated, as a point of comparison, that you don't value dogs the same way you value people.

Your meaning there is clear and indisputable - you were comparing the humans you support discrimination against to dogs.

You are most assuredly not comparing dogs to those humans with current legal personhood; in fact, you are contrasting their legal status.
Click to expand...

This is all your imagination, as what I wrote and meant is clear in ALL those posts, bolded to assist clarity and understanding.

Certainly it's clear and understood by anyone else reading them.
 
Lursa said:
LMAO, you prove me right again...knowingly, since you deliberately deleted the sentences from my post. Here they are again, and it's also apparent that you were not able to understand the text in blue (using color to help you perhaps process it better...if there's another color that works better for you, please let me know).



Do you understand better now? It's not about what's being compared, it's about people's ability to hold a range of values for things and that more/less does not equal 'hate.' (Does the blue help? :) If so, I'll continue to use it in the future.)
Click to expand...

Stevie Wonder could have seen what you were doing.......
 
Fishking said:
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist. Eugenics is based upon controlling the breading of certain undesirables of society. Planned Parenthood's premise is to control reproduction either through contraception or abortion. Either way, the actions match up with the beliefs.
Click to expand...

OK. I guess that I don't really care if that was the intended usage or not. Abortion is an important choice for women and it should stay an available option.
 
Re: Planned Infanticide

BrewerBob said:
It shouldn't. But something tells me we have differing views of what a baby is.
Click to expand...

Only if you tell me that a baby is only one that has been born.
 
Re: Planned Infanticide

The entirety of the abortion "debate" is this:

"Fetus is a living human"
"No it's not"
"Is too"
"Is not"
"IS TOO"
"IS NOT!"

etc etc
 
Re: Planned Infanticide

RamFel said:
Only if you tell me that a baby is only one that has been born.
Click to expand...

When I was pregnant, I said (future tense) I am going to have a baby.

I think of a baby as a born child. I accept others may have different definitions.

But for clarity, if I speak to a preborn, I will use embryo or fetus so there will be clarity in these discussions.

I wish others would show the curtesy of using clear words defining what we are speaking about.
 
Bodhisattva said:
OK. I guess that I don't really care if that was the intended usage or not. Abortion is an important choice for women and it should stay an available option.
Click to expand...

Every once in awhile, I see you make a big mistake, like saying that abortion is an important choice for women.
 
RamFel said:
Every once in awhile, I see you make a big mistake, like saying that abortion is an important choice for women.
Click to expand...

How is it not an important choice for a woman? I want to learn.
 
RamFel said:
Every once in awhile, I see you make a big mistake, like saying that abortion is an important choice for women.
Click to expand...

No, I think you are mistaken if you even want to suggest that it is not an important choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom