Page 92 of 96 FirstFirst ... 42829091929394 ... LastLast
Results 911 to 920 of 954

Thread: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

  1. #911
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,358

    Re: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Nobody 'likes' abortion. As written earlier, life is full of many harsh decisions. Doesnt mean those decisions are wrong.

    Forcing a woman to have a child against her will is about as ugly and unethical as I can think of. Even if you are not an American, considering what that would take, legally, is utterly demeaning and possibly deadly.
    The only ones, where force would be involved are the cases of rape. In the other ones, the girl made her decisions and then squeaks "force".

  2. #912
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,358

    Re: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureIncoming View Post
    A STUPIDLY PREJUDICED LIE. Simply because "mass murder of humans" is not automatically also the same thing as "mass murder of persons", and in fact is a non-sequitur (because the word "murder" only applies to killing persons, not non-persons that happen to be human, like, say, hydatidiform moles). Perhaps I should somewhat reiterate something I challenged you to do in Msg#864: Prove that when a manicurist trims cuticles, hundreds of human lives are NOT ended!


    AND ETHICS IS MOSTLY ABOUT INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PERSONS. There is no major reason to be ethical toward an entity that acts worse than a parasite.
    At least you got that right. Persons are a subclass of human. That would in honest company require human rights to apply to persons, if human rights are to be, what they are said to be.

  3. #913
    Objectivist
    FutureIncoming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of the Cowardly Leaders
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,913
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    At least you got that right. Persons are a subclass of human.
    A STUPIDLY PREJUDICED LIE. PLUS, IT IS IS PERSONS THAT HAVE RIGHTS, NOT HUMANS. When will you offer the slightest bit of a valid rationale that human entities should have rights just because they are human?

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    That would in honest company require human rights to apply
    TO NON-HUMAN PERSONS??? You know, like dolphins. Or perhaps Koko the Gorilla? Or maybe Chantek the Orangutan? And what about intelligent extraterrestrial aliens we haven't met yet? Do you think describing them in terms of human characteristics will be something they will approve-of? You can blather about the Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy of "human rights" endlessly, and I will still remind you that the U.S. Constitution-plus-Amendments is about person rights, not human rights. And there is nothing you can do which will ever cause the phrase "human rights" to sound ethically superior to the phrase "person rights" --especially when not even you would grant rights to the human entities linked in my first paragraph of this msg.
    Last edited by FutureIncoming; 12-07-17 at 11:21 AM.
    Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy was supposedly stomped into irrelevance by WW2; insisting "human=person" fails to Be Prepared for any future with non-human persons in it. So: Define "person" to accurately distinguish one, regardless of how exists, from a mere animal, universally. Why should Stupid Prejudice let our unborn qualify?

  4. #914
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,358

    Re: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureIncoming View Post
    AND YET IS IS PERSONS THAT HAVE RIGHTS, NOT HUMANS. When will you offer the slightest bit of a valid rationale that human entities should have rights just because they are human?


    TO NON-HUMAN PERSONS??? You know, like dolphins. Or perhaps Koko the Gorilla? Or maybe Chantek the Orangutan? And what about intelligent extraterrestrial aliens we haven't met yet? Do you think describing them in terms of human characteristics will be something they will approve-of? You can blather about the Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy of "human rights" endlessly, and I will still remind you that the U.S. Constitution-plus-Amendments is about person rights, not human rights. And there is nothing you can do which will ever cause the phrase "human rights" to sound ethically superior to the phrase "person rights" --especially when not even you would grant rights to the human entities linked in my first paragraph of this msg.
    Nope. You got it iffy. Human rights apply to humans and therefore to persons not vice versa.

  5. #915
    Objectivist
    FutureIncoming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of the Cowardly Leaders
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,913
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    Nope. You got it iffy. Human rights apply to humans and therefore to persons not vice versa.
    WHICH MAKES YOUR SIDE THE ONE BLATHERING IDIOCY. Simply because the word "human" in "human rights" includes hydatiform moles and cancer and cuticle cells and more. And there is no way you or any other abortion opponent will grant those human entities rights, which makes the phrase "human rights" NOT applicable to all things human, and proves the idiocy you are blathering. While "person rights" would apply to all persons no matter how unhuman they might be. Considering the size of the Universe and the probable total population of non-human persons, preferring "person rights" to "human rights" means a vastly greater number of entities would have rights, than what your Stupidly Prejudices Master Race Idiocy would allow.
    Last edited by FutureIncoming; 12-07-17 at 12:40 PM.
    Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy was supposedly stomped into irrelevance by WW2; insisting "human=person" fails to Be Prepared for any future with non-human persons in it. So: Define "person" to accurately distinguish one, regardless of how exists, from a mere animal, universally. Why should Stupid Prejudice let our unborn qualify?

  6. #916
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,931

    Re: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    The only ones, where force would be involved are the cases of rape. In the other ones, the girl made her decisions and then squeaks "force".
    And how would you make her remain pregnant without force? No more pseudo-intellectual bobbing and weaving, tell us how it's not force to make her do something against her will.

    And how, such force could possibly be ethical? Direct answers, please. Feel free to demonstrate that you place the life of the unborn above that of women.

    If you believe the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #917
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,527

    Re: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    Nope. You got it iffy. Human rights apply to humans and therefore to persons not vice versa.
    What codified/statutory human rights do you believe exists?

  8. #918
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,931

    Re: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    The only ones, where force would be involved are the cases of rape. In the other ones, the girl made her decisions and then squeaks "force".
    Oh, btw, why is it ok to kill the unborn in cases of rape?

    Please explain this in direct terms as an indication that you understand the depth of the subject.

    And remember, if it's ok to kill the unborn in cases of rape, it's hard to think of any other reason it's NOT ok to do so due to a woman's choice, except to punish her for behavior you dont approve of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #919
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,931

    Re: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    What codified/statutory human rights do you believe exists?
    Not the American Constitution apparently, not when it comes to women.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #920
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,527

    Re: Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Not the American Constitution apparently, not when it comes to women.
    Hypothetically speaking, if there was (is) a Constitutional language, which includes all stages of human life having common or equal rights, there would have to be a language that clearly and concisely adds a “right to life” clause.

    It is impossible for either constructs to exist in our Constitution, or even to be legislated, without imposing a number of serious conflicting judicial issues related to reproduction, and not to mention the taking away and giving Constitutional rights every time a conception occurred. The last point alone is reason enough for women to go underground to maintain any control over their reproductive roles.

Page 92 of 96 FirstFirst ... 42829091929394 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •