The Pinch - Wake Up, America

[celticwar17]

I pointed out tons of errors in your logic, you just ignored it and kept on going.

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

Not with post #54....

The only valid criticism was you not accepting the statement a Fetus has rights... the rest was irrelevant. How do you not understand that? That was all you needed...

You try to go too far... The argument was ended at that moment. Anything above that was strawman, because it was against nothing I had actually said.

 

[Removable Mind]

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.

Im voting that your inability to articulate your arguments clearly and concisely is way more likely to be the problem than my limitations to fully utilize the English language.

How is a fetus capable of possessing equal rights with a born person in a society ruled by law?

 

[Lursa]

Not with post #54....

The only valid criticism was you not accepting the statement a Fetus has rights... the rest was irrelevant. How do you not understand that? That was all you needed...

You try to go too far... The argument was ended at that moment. Anything above that was strawman, because it was against nothing I had actually said.

LMAO, here is what you responded to in post 54, and it certainly should have been clear BEFORE you responded:

Do you not consider that to place the (proposed) rights of the unborn would require placing some or all of a woman's rights as subordinate to the unborn, making them unequal and reducing women back to 2nd class citizens again? The born and unborn cannot be treated equally, legally or practically, so one must be secondary, be less.

IMO that certainly is the unborn.

I'm afraid you only read what you wanted to read, not what was actually written.

 

[celticwar17]

How is a fetus capable of possessing equal rights with a born person in a society ruled by law?

A fetus is capable of possessing equal civil rights when born people agree that it does...

But that kind of civil right is not the one I am talking about... because technically we have no rights at all under a tyrannical government.

I am talking about ethics, the higher moral right, That a fellow human in it's early stages of development has a right to life just like we do, because we were also once in it's position. I told you that this is where the impasse is... I value a fetus as equal, because I see no difference between a fully grown human being and a underdeveloped one...they are just stages of the same organism. The essence of the organism doesn't change.

 

[celticwar17]

LMAO, here is what you responded to in post 54, and it certainly should have been clear BEFORE you responded:



I'm afraid you only read what you wanted to read, not what was actually written.

Oh jeez... do you not understand what you said??
I was responding the actual QUESTION you posted, NOT THE BOLDED....

"Do you not consider that to place the (proposed) rights of the unborn would require placing some or all of a woman's rights as subordinate to the unborn, making them unequal and reducing women back to 2nd class citizens again? "
You told me to consider from which the rights of the unborn was recognized that it would require the above....
That was what I responding to...
and that is what my argument was on.


regardless...You now understand my argument? And what it was reliant on?

 

[Removable Mind]

Not with post #54....

The only valid criticism was you not accepting the statement a Fetus has rights... the rest was irrelevant. How do you not understand that? That was all you needed...

You try to go too far... The argument was ended at that moment. Anything above that was strawman, because it was against nothing I had actually said.

#54 is 10 lbs of BS in a 5 lb bag. It's nothing short of YOUR personal opinions that are a collection of judgmental slut shaming condemnations of women who demand equal protection under the law. Due process under the law. Right to privacy all of which are equal to men.

Men have no moral or legal obligation to reproduce. And news flash! Neither do women.

 

[Removable Mind]

A fetus is capable of possessing equal civil rights when born people agree that it does...

But that kind of civil right is not the one I am talking about... because technically we have no rights at all under a tyrannical government.

I am talking about ethics, the higher moral right, That a fellow human in it's early stages of development has a right to life just like we do, because we were also once in it's position. I told you that this is where the impasse is... I value a fetus as equal, because I see no difference between a fully grown human being and a underdeveloped one...they are just stages of the same organism. The essence of the organism doesn't change.

Your perception of equality is wrong in so many ways. Offer a single Constutional right that can be recognized and enforced in the same manner as the born.

 

[Lursa]

A fetus is capable of possessing equal civil rights when born people agree that it does...

And why would society (born people) choose to do that? Society does/would recognize the negative impacts on women, the violations of their civil rights. That such a decision would make women less equal than the unborn.

What do you see compelling society (born people) to do that?

Yup...once again it comes down to how society (born people) value people and the unborn. Do you think society values women less than the unborn? Do you think society should?

 

[Lursa]

Oh jeez... do you not understand what you said??
I was responding the actual QUESTION you posted, NOT THE BOLDED....

"Do you not consider that to place the (proposed) rights of the unborn would require placing some or all of a woman's rights as subordinate to the unborn, making them unequal and reducing women back to 2nd class citizens again? "
You told me to consider from which the rights of the unborn was recognized that it would require the above....
That was what I responding to...
and that is what my argument was on.


regardless...You now understand my argument? And what it was reliant on?

Nope, and not even bothering. You have not endeavored to understand mine and I'm not going to waste more time on yours except as a response to mine.

 

[celticwar17]

#54 is 10 lbs of BS in a 5 lb bag. It's nothing short of YOUR personal opinions that are a collection of judgmental slut shaming condemnations of women who demand equal protection under the law. Due process under the law. Right to privacy all of which are equal to men.

Men have no moral or legal obligation to reproduce. And news flash! Neither do women.

Tell me where it is flawed... there is nothing judgmental about it... seriously point a single judgmental thing in there.

 

[celticwar17]

Your perception of equality is wrong in so many ways. Offer a single Constutional right that can be recognized and enforced in the same manner as the born.

This has nothing to do with the constitution...

you tire me dude...I simply stated an example of the idea of a god given right.... that's it... nothing else. I didn't really say anything about equality in my post.... WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS CRAP???

 

[celticwar17]

Nope, and not even bothering. You have not endeavored to understand mine and I'm not going to waste more time on yours except as a response to mine.

I understand your viewpoint... but there is no point in addressing it unless we agree on the fact of the value of a fetus. THAT is where our views disagree...nowhere else.

 

[jet57]

As long as abortion mills exist there will be tragic incidents like this. If not this generation then the next or the next. It will always be a contested issue and there will always be someone who takes it beyond the pale.

The issue will not be solved by changing the language.



No one is being punished by not having the ability to kill the unborn. You are on the wrong side of the problem when you characterize these folks as simply "those who have made mistakes". Perhaps a generation of women should learn not to open their legs unless they are willing and in the right place to get pregnant. A generation of men should learn not to horn around until they are ready and willing to be fathers.

For genuine, not my fault situations there have always been exceptions. We don't need abortion mills for that. We don't need the same org that kills unborn teaching our kids to go ahead and have sex (as long as you're protected) - now THAT is a mistake.

There even greater tragic incidences than these loooong before Planned Parenthood clinics existed.

That's why they exist today. So your reply to smeals is simply rooted in an ignorance of the health issues and true reality of the abortion process.

Nobody likes it, but it ain't goin away and if someone I loved was up to it, I'd rather she lived through the process than me scolding a grave.

 

[Removable Mind]

This has nothing to do with the constitution...

you tire me dude...I simply stated an example of the idea of a god given right.... that's it... nothing else. I didn't really say anything about equality in my post.... WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS CRAP???

Dude, you tiring me. Any relationship to what YOU personally believe is "God given rights" is subjective - and irrelevant.

Most of post #54 are subjective comments and based on how you want women to be responsible or manage their sexual lives and conduct.

 

[celticwar17]

Dude, you tiring me. Any relationship to what YOU personally believe is "God given rights" is subjective - and irrelevant.

Most of post #54 are subjective comments and based on how you want women to be responsible or manage their sexual lives and conduct.

Yea, they are responsible... show me through the logic how I am wrong... do you know how to refute an argument? I welcome it

 

[prometeus]

I am not an Athiest, I am a Theist/Deist... I think if just one of these are correct a fetus as the same value as any born human...

And you wish that our laws be based on your beliefs as opposed to rational and provable tenets?

 

[prometeus]

I simply stated an example of the idea of a god given right...

What will you make you understand that there is not such animal? That some people have asserted such does not make reality. Can you reference any scripture of any religion that mentions rights?

 

[prometeus]

I understand your viewpoint... but there is no point in addressing it unless we agree on the fact of the value of a fetus.

Even if you agreed, it does not make it so, true or binding.

 

[celticwar17]

Even if you agreed, it does not make it so, true or binding.

This is true

 

[celticwar17]

And you wish that our laws be based on your beliefs as opposed to rational and provable tenets?

I argue it is based on rational and provable tenets... I think it is rational to believe there is some sort of god...That is where the debate is, the abortion issue goes much deeper than just abortion itself.

 

[celticwar17]

What will you make you understand that there is not such animal? That some people have asserted such does not make reality. Can you reference any scripture of any religion that mentions rights?

They don't have to be God given... all they need to be is to ethically and logically sound based on our assumptions about the world.... I come from a viewpoint where I assume a creator

 

[prometeus]

I argue it is based on rational and provable tenets...

Ok, list them.

I think it is rational to believe there is some sort of god...

So you think that people who do not believe in god(s) are irrational?

That is where the debate is, the abortion issue goes much deeper than just abortion itself.

How much deeper? To where?

 

[prometeus]

They don't have to be God given...

It is not that they do not have to be, it is that they are definitely not. That is supported by scripture.

all they need to be is to ethically and logically sound based on our assumptions about the world

Yes, now we are getting somewhere, but the world is a bit too big and to divided to be of practical inclusion.

... I come from a viewpoint where I assume a creator

And that is fine as long as you can integrate that with the viewpoint of countless others that are different from yours.

 

[Removable Mind]

Yea, they are responsible... show me through the logic how I am wrong... do you know how to refute an argument? I welcome it

The problem is that it would be fruitless to debate you on subjective beliefs, especially God or spiritually related comments or claims.

You can't prove there are such a thing as God given rights. You continue to claim "women's sexual responsibilities are based on your standards.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

[celticwar17]

It is not that they do not have to be, it is that they are definitely not. That is supported by scripture.

Yes, now we are getting somewhere, but the world is a bit too big and to divided to be of practical inclusion.

And that is fine as long as you can integrate that with the viewpoint of countless others that are different from yours.

Ok, list them.

So you think that people who do not believe in god(s) are irrational?

Hmmm Idk Irrational is the right word, but wrong?
1. Humans are special is the universe, we violate the laws of physics with our consciousness.... how?
Our movements/reactions are not determined by physical/real means, but are determined by non-real entities/ideas. Everything else in the universe has determinism based on their initial conditions(at least to extent quantum-wise) , I would argue humans do not...

A thought experiment- You have a coin and are walking on a road that divides into two, left and right.... You decide that you are going to flip the coin and if the coin says tails-left, heads -right... You flip it and go the direction you correlated with the coin.... Physics-wise, this is truly wonderful and unique to life, Your surroundings or even the electrical signals in your brain did not determine your path, but the fictional concept of heads and tails imprinted on the coin.... you gave the coin meaning and properties it never had before, just by thinking about it... And that is what Humans do, and where they have all the power, we give things meaning, maybe that is our very purpose in the universe? To give it meaning....

I could go on and on but essentially the conclusion is... Humans, and maybe even life in general, is special and gives things meaning...

A typical Atheist view denies this property about humans and life.

This is the foundation of my belief that the Universe is Life-centric... it would not exist if life did not exist, because then it would have no meaning. There is evidence of this in the observer principle in quantum physics... the universe could very well be a blob of variance, until live observes it. Kind of like an MMO video game where the loading screens only load when you come into the facility and before that they did not exist...

I think this gives a strong case for a creator, and I would also touch on a little of Plato and other philsophers...The one over the many argument is very convincing to me.... and tying in saint thomas Aquinas that the One is whom we call god. Idk if you are familiar.... It's quite an exhausting topic that requires a lot on my part, that's why I ask if you are familiar?

How much deeper? To where?

A theological and ethical one. There aren't many Theological/religious beliefs that suffer such consequences as abortion.... most can coexist in our society.