- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
You are not getting it.
The value is zero until its a baby.
I get it just fine, thankyouverymuch. You are the one failing to recognize the development of that fetus and how morally consequential the developed ability to suffer is to our dispensation of human rights. Your entire argument at this point is whether it is on one side or the other of the birth canal. That's just stupid and lacking any form of compassion or depth of analysis.
Wow, now we don't care how inaccurate our terminology is as long as it will be inflammatory eh ?
My terminology is perfectly accurate. You are advocating the murder of a baby when you advocate unfettered abortion past 22 weeks.
You are talking about what you consider a baby.
Yes, I like staying grounded in reality. :shrug:
I not only don't have to agree with you, I don't even need to consider your rigamarole of comparison. I am at liberty to make my own decision in the matter, and I say it's a baby once its born.
Yes. You say, you say, you say. Your whole argument is based on nothing more than what you say. I am not interested in your opining about how to disregard the rights of babies because it might be inconvenient for the woman. You can say until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that the law does not agree with you because the majority of the country aren't base, depraved baby killing barbarians.
None of your science arguments gain any traction here,
I wouldn't imagine science would gain any traction with someone deluded enough to convince his own conscience that killing a baby is acceptable...
as my personal decision on the point at which to start valuing that Human is mine alone, and I do not have to base it off of your parallels or your opinions.
I seem to recall hearing the same argument spouted off about other human beings prior to January 1, 1863...
I am not doing any somersaults, I just disagree with you about something unprovable.
It has been proven. The structural components are all there. But you have already stated that it is irrelevant as your whole argument hinges on your personal opinion to devalue a human life, most abhorrently using your own hypothetical baby as an example of your lack of empathy for your own offspring. Your argument lacks any form of logic or foundation in Constitutional support. You hinge it on one word, with emphasis on that word speciously placed by you and your proud chest thumping about how you don't have to value a baby if it is on the wrong side of the tracks.
You feel awfully powerful being able to thrust your will onto that little baby, huh?
Citizens are born. Womb contents are not citizens.
That has not been fully decided. What has, however, been decided, is that "womb contents" past a certain stage of development are granted a right to live provided the baby's existence is not threatening the life or health of the mother. Murdering the baby...err...womb contents :roll: is punishable under the law.
Sorry pal, the Constitution states that persons born are citizens.
Sorry pal, that emphasis is yours and not the constitution's. It is simply stating that those naturalized here have the same rights as those born here. It in no way speaks to the topic of abortion.
Society's business is much better handled by staying the hell out of family decisions and squabbles.
Except where your family decisions and squabbles result in a stronger family member stripping other family members of their basic human rights. That is society' business and will ever remain that way as long as we consider ourselves an civilized society of equality. You're just gonna have to learn to deal with that, chuckles.
Heres the big point that I have not even gotten out yet.
Is it more "I say, I say, I say" because if it is, you can keep it back.
Consider this jallman:
Society is having its town hall meeting. You decry abortion. I stand up and ask if the Town Hall will fall down if we ignore abortions. Since it won't, why don't we just ignore tham, rather than try to get violence on a large portion of our already existant citizens ?
For the same reason we did not ignore the holocaust. For the same reason we did not ignore slavery. For the same reason we do not ignore exploitation of children or the AIDS crisis in Africa or the genocides in Darfur. Citizenship is not what grants human rights. Being a human is what grants human rights. Hell, if a guy wants to kill his neighbor and that's it, will the Town Hall fall down if we ignore it? Since it won't, why don't we just ignore him rather than try to bring him to justice (which does not imply doing violence against him despite your attempt to throw that red herring in)? :roll:
I simply reject your interference in the reproductive cycle of other citizens as rude and unwarranted. Attack already existant citizens over a potential citizen ?
Your reproductive rights are yours until they begin inflicting harm on another sentient, sapient human being without provocation. And again, citizenship is not the issue at stake here. Human rights is the issue. And no one is advocating attacking anyone (except those advocating the free practice of dismembering babies in utero). I am proposing placing legal implications for doing so. Oh wait...nevermind, that's already been done for the most part.
Are you Nuts ?
I think that is a much more appropriate and poignant question when directed at the one who has no issue with the dismemberment of babies just because they are on the wrong side of the tracks...