Roe vs Wade can be reversed?

[AGENT J]

Your feelings would be a fact. If I argued that you believed that woman are all whores.. and you then treated all woman as whores... would you argue that I could not prove that you in fact.. held such a belief despite what you said and what you did?

I argue that we as humans all believe in natural rights. and proof of that belief is evident by the fact that people will believe in folks having rights.. despite the law saying they don't

IF there were no such things as natural rights.. and rights were only granted by government.. .. then where did the government get these "rights"...

you can't say from humans.. because then you are admitting that rights stem from humankind.. and not from government.

so please explain your logic.. that humans do not have natural rights?

where do governments get them? Aliens?

Nothing you just stated supports your false claim LOL
I said they are made up and subjective dont try to twist it because your claims are failing that wont work either.

Ill ask you AGAIN the question you keep dodging:

if you disagree please simply provide these natural rights and prove they are factual...it cant be done. Anything you present will be subjective and not factual. Let us know when you can list them, thanks!

so in your next reply anything that isnt a list of these natural rights with proof they are factual and not subjective will further prove your claims are factually wrong :shrug:
I look forwar to your list, thanks!

 

[ecofarm]

Nope.. they are choice.. in how you choose to exercise those rights.. AND an obligation to respect them in others.. as they respect them in you.

Actually you realize that YOU are the one that pointed out that humans respect of others rights (an obligation) was natural.

Rights are not dependent on the realization of that obligation. Their violation is not their absolution.

ps. I was editing above during your reply.

 

[jaeger19]

Nothing you just stated supports your false claim LOL
I said they are made up and subjective dont try to twist it because your claims are failing that wont work either.

Ill ask you AGAIN the question you keep dodging:



so in your next reply anything that isnt a list of these natural rights with proof they are factual and not subjective will further prove your claims are factually wrong :shrug:
I look forwar to your list, thanks!

I already supplied proof they are factual. The fact that people will believe there are a violation of rights despite it being government sanctioned and legal.. is proof of natural rights.

and the natural rights are innumerable. ...

so no need for a list.

Sorry but I have already provided proof and logic.

 

[jaeger19]

Rights are not dependent on the realization of that obligation. Their violation is not their absolution.

ps. I was editing above during your reply.

Yep. I agree.

So what are you arguing against now?

 

[AGENT J]

I1 already supplied proof they are factual. The fact that people will believe there are a violation of rights despite it being government sanctioned and legal.. is proof of natural rights.

and the natural rights are innumerable. ...

so no need for a list.

Sorry but I have already provided proof and logic.

LMAO and thats what I thought! you havent listed any proof
You cant list them because they are not objective, facts prove your claims wrong

Please let us know when you can these natural rights with proof they are factual and not subjective, thanks!

 

[ecofarm]

Yep. I agree.

So what are you arguing against now?

Making sure some nuance is clear.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Well holy crap! I just found one. And I agree with your assessment.

There is someone else here who is okay with killing it after birth and before it is "claimed" and named.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Well holy crap! I just found one. And I agree with your assessment.

There's a few others as well but they don't post often in here. You should do some reading up on Peter Singer. The guy is a king when it comes to defending infanticide.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

There is someone else here who is okay with killing it after birth and before it is "claimed" and named.

Komir the Rat is his name Scrabaholic. Then a long time ago there was someone from France who was also ok with infanticide but I forgot his screen name.

 

[cpwill]

I try to keep it civil despite the person attacks on my character... yes.

No you don't. You wantonly impugn the motivations and intentions of those who disagree with you in order to cast yourself as opposing evil, rather than people who have in good faith come to a differing conclusion than yourself and/or who may even have good reasons for believing what they do.

Exactly my point. BUT they would most absolutely be in favor of laws.. that would put that 14 year old child in jail for murder.

You are most absolutely incorrect. Maybe you should bother learning about the people you slander, instead of attacking a cartoon version of them in ignorance?

That's the point I have been making. The anti abortion crowd's position is not based on reality, on science, logic or even compassion. Its a knee jerk emotion reaction that's based on some warped moral standard.

As soon as we get into a discussion of the nuts and bolts of how an anti abortion stance would work under the law.. .. the anti abortion premise false flat on its face.

That's the irony here. I am not projecting a simplistic view. I am pointing out the actual real world gray areas involved.

No you aren't. You are projecting a simple world, where those who disagree with you are "not based on reality, on science, logic or even compassion" but rather "knee jerk emotion reaction that's based on some warped moral standard"

Are you really this self-unaware?

Actually what I described above.. when an abortion is performed because of risks to the mother or risk to the child are more the norm. Particularly in the US today

You are woefully incorrect. While we should be thankful that instances of sexually enslaved, beaten, drugged, and raped 14 year olds is vanishingly rare, they are not the norm for abortions in the U.S.

You antiabortion folks put yourself in knowing what is best for that family and child. And you don't have a clue. All you are promoting is more suffering and death.

Says the man actually promoting suffering and death. :roll:

 

[cpwill]

I provided sufficient information.
.
Again.. My father is on life support and suffering. I order the lifesupport removed to end his suffering.

Do you want me arrested for murder?

:shrug: that isn't sufficient information at all. You haven't even mentioned whether your father is conscious, whether he left a living will, what his odds for recovery are.

There are situations where stripping live-saving care from people can be murder, and there are ways in which taking someone off a machine can not be murder.