The Pinch - Wake Up, America

[Kobie]

can absolute truths be proven?

is God an absolute truth?

No. There, that was easy.

 

[Lursa]

Interesting...
I just don't follow your logic...
what about thou shall not kill?
The unborn fetus wants to live doesn't it? Your body certainly wants it, it's the one creating it.... What makes you think a woman has any more right to kill a fetus than to kill a grown human being? Does it not have a purpose?

I am honestly interested.

How do you know what the unborn wants? That is not remotely logical. The unborn does not think

And a woman's body doesnt 'want' it or not.

Stop personifying things that are not capable. The unborn and bodies are not 'persons' and not capable of any want or thought.

Your argument has deteriorated into speculating and fantasy about things you imagine. Please do not even suggest that you are using logic.

And no unborn or person has a purpose except that which is recognized by themselves and society. As in: not imbued by any "Higher Authority."

As stated, of course a woman has a choice if she wants to have an abortion, a medical procedure that kills the unborn. It's a fact and I have explained my stance on this. We all know what abortion is. Where you and many pro-lifers differ from myself and many pro-choice people is the value we place on both.

You seem to value the unborn more than women.

I value women more than the unborn.

They are not equal and society cannot treat them equally, legally or practically. *I* choose women.

 

[celticwar17]

No. There, that was easy.

according to you xD and me kind of... but I accept there are thing that are true I cannot prove.... Like the existence of hydrogen atoms in a star 1000 billion light years away... I know they are there, but I cannot prove it... there is only evidence of wavelength data.

just because we are incapable of proving something doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Lursa]

can absolute truths be proven?

is God an absolute truth?

Nope.

 

[Lursa]

just because we are incappable of proving something doesn't mean it's not there.

And it's not an absolute truth either.

 

[celticwar17]

How do you know what the unborn wants? That is not remotely logical. The unborn does not think

And a woman's body doesnt 'want' it or not.

Stop personifying things that are not capable. The unborn and bodies are not 'persons' and not capable of any want or thought.

Your argument has deteriorated into speculating and fantasy about things you imagine. Please do not even suggest that you are using logic.

And no unborn or person has a purpose except that which is recognized by themselves and society. As in: not imbued by any "Higher Authority."

As stated, of course a woman has a choice if she wants to have an abortion, a medical procedure that kills the unborn. It's a fact and I have explained my stance on this. We all know what abortion is. Where you and many pro-lifers differ from myself and many pro-choice people is the value we place on both.

You seem to value the unborn more than women.

I value women more than the unborn.

They are not equal and society cannot treat them equally, legally or practically. *I* choose women.

I am just interested in your thought process. No need to get defensive.
Thou shall not kill?

"Wanting" is the only word I have to describe your body process creating and developing the fetus.Your body is actively producing another human... you are the one that is going against it.

 

[celticwar17]

Nope.

interesting... a Chrsitian who is unsure about Christianity...so you are a agnostic Christian? It would certainly explain this weird conversation...

 

[Lursa]

I am just interested in your thought process. No need to get defensive.
Thou shall not kill?

"Wanting" is the only word I have to describe your body process creating and developing the fetus.

Not defensive, just using reality instead of imagination.

As you have left the bounds of ethics and deteriorated into judgement and religion (sadly they often go hand in hand), I'm not really interested in your discussion anymore.

If you'd like to continue, please address some of the questions I've asked you (and avoided) instead of continually asking me more questions, which are more and more about religion.

 

[Lursa]

interesting... a Chrsitian who is unsure about Christianity...so you are a agnostic Christian? It would certainly explain this weird conversation...

I believe in God. It's called faith. Faith has nothing to do with proof.

You dont seem to understand religion as much as you'd like us to believe!

 

[truthatallcost]

There are videos on YouTube documenting what an abortion looks like. I had the guts to watch a few, and it was gut wrenching. There are videos where the baby is fully formed, appears quite healthy and the nurses kill it anyway.

Do pro abortion people ever watch these videos? I can't see how any woman with maternal instincts could see this and then take it as lightly as some of them do.

 

[celticwar17]

Not defensive, just using reality instead of imagination.

As you have left the bounds of ethics and deteriorated into judgement and religion (sadly they often go hand in hand), I'm not really interested in your discussion anymore.

If you'd like to continue, please address some of the questions I've asked you (and avoided) instead of continually asking me more questions, which are more and more about religion.

look...
I started with the argument with assumption that the fetus has value... nothing else... it was addressing a counter point you made.

My arguments fails if I cannot convince you the fetus has value... that is why we are having the discussion we are having.

Maybe I should reword my previous statements... It's whether one thinks killing a fetus is morally wrong or not. Whether one thinks the Fetus is just as valuable as any human. This may be a belief, but it is a belief with dire consequences.... one where you have to just stand by and allow murder to take place. That is why it's not just a matter of belief, Religion is a matter of belief.... what Turbin you want to wear is a matter of belief. It's the same reason why it is illegal to kill cows in India... they are sacred, in their religion it is a crime.

What would I do if I went to India and couldn't eat beef? I'd be pissed off... but I don't think I would blame those that think the cow is sacred. I would challenge their logical bases for that belief in the first place. THAT i where the argument has to take place, because that is where you disagree...

I hope you understand what I am saying

 

[Removable Mind]

I am just interested in your thought process. No need to get defensive.
Thou shall not kill?

"Wanting" is the only word I have to describe your body process creating and developing the fetus.

Governments worldwide kills all the time.

Most nations have institutions that kills.

Just following god's examples throughout the bible perhaps?

In fact, ten's of thousands of women are killed each year by their fetuses. Anybody shared the "thou shall not kill" thing with fetuses?

 

[celticwar17]

I believe in God. It's called faith. Faith has nothing to do with proof.

You dont seem to understand religion as much as you'd like us to believe!

You make my head hurt....
You have faith that it is an absolute truth...regardless it's either you are right or you are wrong, in REALITY

 

[celticwar17]

Governments worldwide kills all the time.

Most nations have institutions that kills.

Just following god's examples throughout the bible perhaps?

In fact, ten's of thousands of women are killed each year by their fetuses. Anybody shared the "thou shall not kill" thing with fetuses?

Alright...I am going to argue against your arguments lol just to show how incompetent you sound...

"Governments worldwide kills all the time. " Okay.... and? Is your assumption that I think this is okay? You would be wrong if that is the case...

"Most nations have institutions that kills." Does this justify killing? Are you assuming I support the killing nations do? Outside of self defence... I do not support Nations killing anyone...

"Just following god's examples throughout the bible perhaps?" I don't really follow the bible, but yea I think in there is said Thou Shall not Kill...

"In fact, ten's of thousands of women are killed each year by their fetuses. Anybody shared the "thou shall not kill" thing with fetuses?" You are making the assumption that a fetus intends to kill the mother. It does not.... If there is a medical complication then you absolutely have to deal with it by removing the fetus from the womb and then try to stabilize it... if it dies, it sucks, but not murder.

Listen to my critiques... it will help you not make the same mistakes in the future. You are making tons of assumptions and invalid arguements...

 

[Removable Mind]

look...
I started with the argument with assumption that the fetus has value... nothing else... it was addressing a counter point you made.

My arguments fails if I cannot convince you the fetus has value... that is why we are having the discussion we are having.

Maybe I should reword my previous statements... It's whether one thinks killing a fetus is morally wrong or not. Whether one thinks the Fetus is just as valuable as any human. This may be a belief, but it is a belief with dire consequences.... one where you have to just stand by and allow murder to take place. That is why it's not just a matter of belief, Religion is a matter of belief.... what Turbin you want to wear is a matter of belief. It's the same reason why it is illegal to kill cows in India... they are sacred, in their religion it is a crime.

What would I do if I went to India and couldn't eat beef? I'd be pissed off... but I don't think I would blame those that think the cow is sacred. I would challenge their logical bases for that belief in the first place. THAT i where the argument has to take place, because that is where you disagree...

I hope you understand what I am saying

You realize that most conceptions are brought to full term? And most pro-choice women won't have an abortion.

And yet pro-choice see the NECESSITY of preserving their rights as imperative. Sadly you can't or won't review all of the issues that constitute "necessity".

 

[Lursa]

look...
I started with the argument with assumption that the fetus has value... nothing else... it was addressing a counter point you made.

My arguments fails if I cannot convince you the fetus has value... that is why we are having the discussion we are having.

Maybe I should reword my previous statements... It's whether one thinks killing a fetus is morally wrong or not. Whether one thinks the Fetus is just as valuable as any human. This may be a belief, but it is a belief with dire consequences.... one where you have to just stand by and allow murder to take place. That is why it's not just a matter of belief, Religion is a matter of belief.... what Turbin you want to wear is a matter of belief. It's the same reason why it is illegal to kill cows in India... they are sacred, in their religion it is a crime.

What would I do if I went to India and couldn't eat beef? I'd be pissed off... but I don't think I would blame those that think the cow is sacred. I would challenge their logical bases for that belief in the first place. THAT i where the argument has to take place, because that is where you disagree...

I hope you understand what I am saying

I understand. You are backpeddling. Yeah, you started out that way and I explained why many people "ethically, morally" do not believe the unborn have more value than women.

However you, here and all throughout, demonstrate zero understanding of anything I wrote and IMO, that is because your 'so-called' ethical perspective on abortion is nothing more than your religious ideology...which was eventually revealed.

You can attempt to re-address it all with the facade of 'morality'...my answers will be exactly the same...feel free to re-read and see if you can understand them this time. It requires an open mind...so I'm doubtful.

 

[celticwar17]

You realize that most conceptions are brought to full term? And most pro-choice women won't have an abortion.

Makes no difference... If all, none, some, or the majority...has nothing to do with the argument...

And yet pro-choice see the NECESSITY of preserving their rights as imperative. Sadly you can't or won't review all of the issues that constitute "necessity".

I think you have a convincing argument IF the fetus has no rights. And by rights I mean the God given kind the founders were talking about... ethical ideological moral rights.

 

[matchlight]

If abortion is outlawed, the government will be seen as an oppressor, and the masses will become angry. In addition, the government would need to expand its forces to enforce the laws outlawing this practice. This would be big government at its worst. It would be our government regulating one of the most personal activities we can experience as humans. This is obviously also not a desirable situation.

It's important to make clear what you mean by "government." A myth has grown up that the U.S. government could somehow outlaw abortion completely, if not for Roe v. Wade. That is nonsense--Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate abortion.

If the Supreme Court were to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey tomorrow, and hold there is no constitutional right to abortion, nothing whatever would prevent any state from allowing abortion on demand, prohibiting it in almost every situation, or regulating it to some degree between those extremes, according to what the majority of that state's residents wanted.

"Big government" is a phrase that's most often used in regard to the federal government. States had abortion laws in the 1800's, when their governments were relatively limited, so I can't see what makes a state legislature making abortion laws an exercise of "big government." You might as well say state vehicle codes or laws regulating corporations are "big government at its worst."

I also can't see why "the masses" in a state (whoever they may be) should become angry about whatever abortion laws the majority in that state saw fit to make, or why that majority should care. Since when does a minority or a state's voters, or of the legislators they elect, get to run the show? In this country, majority rule is the norm, and it always has been.

Before 1973, states were free to regulate abortion, just as they were free to regulate other highly personal activities like adultery, bigamy, incest, going nude in public, the use of alcohol by minors, or fornication at high noon on the city hall lawn. The mere fact an act is personal has never been thought, in this country, to exempt it from regulation by law.

States whose laws prohibited abortion always faced the problem of enforcing them--just as they always faced the problem of enforcing laws against arson, fraud, robbery, and all sorts of other acts. That's why states have police forces and prosecutor's offices.

 

[Removable Mind]

Alright...I am going to argue against your arguments lol just to show how incompetent you sound...

"Governments worldwide kills all the time. " Okay.... and? Is your assumption that I think this is okay? You would be wrong if that is the case...

"Most nations have institutions that kills." Does this justify killing? Are you assuming I support the killing nations do? Outside of self defence... I do not support Nations killing anyone...

"Just following god's examples throughout the bible perhaps?" I don't really follow the bible, but yea I think in there is said Thou Shall not Kill...

"In fact, ten's of thousands of women are killed each year by their fetuses. Anybody shared the "thou shall not kill" thing with fetuses?" You are making the assumption that a fetus intends to kill the mother. It does not.... If there is a medical complication then you absolutely have to deal with it by removing the fetus from the womb and then try to stabilize it... if it dies, it sucks, but not murder. It does not violate "thou shall not kill" if it is not intended

Listen to my critiques... it will help you not make the same mistakes in the future. You are making tons of assumptions and invalid arguements...

No assumptions - merely restating a lot of your arguments.

You claim the yet to be born are equal to the born, but you can't define how other than some story about how humans have purpose and souls and thou shall not kill stuff.

Your spiritual beliefs are obviously not universal. Nor is your value that you place on the yet to be born.

 

[Removable Mind]

Makes no difference... If all, none, some, or the majority...has nothing to do with the argument...


I think you have a convincing argument IF the fetus has no rights. And by rights I mean the God given kind the founders were talking about... ethical ideological moral rights.

We are a nation ruled by laws. That's what the founders said. We aren't a theocracy.

 

[celticwar17]

I understand. You are backpeddling. Yeah, you started out that way and I explained why many people "ethically, morally" do not believe the unborn have more value than women.

However you, here and all throughout, demonstrate zero understanding of anything I wrote and IMO, that is because your 'so-called' ethical perspective on abortion is nothing more than your religious ideology...which was eventually revealed.

You can attempt to re-address it all with the facade of 'morality'...my answers will be exactly the same...feel free and see if you can understand them this time.

I don't know if that is fair... It has real implications to me. So yea I have a different approach because we have different realities apparently. I don't think I am back-peddling, I try to to further clarify, and justify the reasoning for which I am responding the way I am.

And to reinstate what I said in a earlier post, I am not really even Pro-choice or Pro-life...I don't know, I don't have an answer... And I often try to seek it, I try to find the impasses of the arguments...
The extra majority of what you say is great, If we agree on the premises, but we don't.... so it can't go farther until we do.

The arguments must start when we accept common truths and we don't... Unless you can find a error in my logic, from my assumptions, that is where the argument lies.

 

[celticwar17]

We are a nation ruled by laws. That's what the founders said. We aren't a theocracy.

Again.... has nothing to do with anything LOL...First off,it was just an example of what I was talking about, Second off The quote of the god-given rights has nothing to do with Theocracies or freedom of religion, or secularism...and I did not state it did lol
honestly, is English not your first language? Could be a language barrier thing.

 

[Lursa]

Makes no difference... If all, none, some, or the majority...has nothing to do with the argument...


I think you have a convincing argument IF the fetus has no rights. And by rights I mean the God given kind the founders were talking about... ethical ideological moral rights.

The FF never intended the unborn to have rights either. WHere did you get that idea? Are you aware that they took the opener for the DOI from John Locke's "All men are born equally free?" They intentionally changed it from 'born'.

And we cannot take it for granted that the meant all born people either, as the courts had to go and consider equality for blacks and women:

All "men" are created equal was the original in the US. SCOTUS then had to go and revisit that and after consideration, recognized equal rights for blacks and women. It performed the same process and consideration for the unborn...and did not recognize them as equal to the born.

All rights are recognized and then protected by man.

 

[Lursa]

I don't know if that is fair... It has real implications to me. So yea I have a different approach because we have different realities apparently. I don't think I am back-peddling, I try to to further clarify, and justify the reasoning for which I am responding the way I am.

And to reinstate what I said in a earlier post, I am not really even Pro-choice or Pro-life...I don't know, I don't have an answer... And I often try to seek it, I try to find the impasses of the arguments...
The extra majority of what you say is great, If we agree on the premises, but we don't.... so it can't go farther until we do.

The arguments must start when we accept common truths and we don't... Unless you can find a error in my logic, from my assumptions, that is where the argument lies.

I pointed out tons of errors in your logic, you just ignored it and kept on going. You didnt counter my arguments, you ignored them. You never remotely addressed the unethical treatment women would be subjected to if the unborn were legally accorded rights. (mostly because you kept saying the law doesnt matter...yet oddly kept bringing up rights...which cannot be protected or enforced without law.)

I dont really care, as my refuting your arguments is here for all to read.

 

[celticwar17]

No assumptions - merely restating a lot of your arguments.

No... NONE of my arguments had anything to do with those lol

You claim the yet to be born are equal to the born, but you can't define how other than some story about how humans have purpose and souls and thou shall not kill stuff.

Your spiritual beliefs are obviously not universal. Nor is your value that you place on the yet to be born.

I don't think it is so obvious, it is either the world s spiritual or it's not, the fetus has spiritual value or it does not... this is not determined by me, I have no say, I only have what I have logically deduced which is different than what many others have had... but yes I accept the basis of the value of a fetus is spiritually based in the arguments I have used so far for the most part... and that is something I said from the very beginning man...