The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

RStringfield said:
Nope, that's you. I say, protect all the babies, don't stick any of them into a freezer but they are not babies until they have a functioning brain which is the source of rights. What is done with them before that is an issue for the mother or parents.
Click to expand...
Now you're against freezing embryos? Dick?
 
Southern Man said:
Now you're a douche as well as a dick. "Right to Life" is simply a catch phrase, and doesn't define a position precisely. Only a douche would insist it to mean other than right to innocent human life. Like you, Dick.
Click to expand...

The right to life is not the issue? This is priceless.

lmao

WHAT'S THE ISSUE THEN! Keep ducking pussies, I got lot's more ammo.
 
lol oh boy, still rolling on that one. The right to life crowd is arguing that right to life is not the issue. whooo.....

I will be bashed for saying it, but damn I am good.
 
Wow Dick you're really being retarded now. I state what my position is and then you ask me for my position. I state what the issue is then you insist that its not the issue. That's as retarded as the other lib-tard, TaichiLiberal. Dick.
 
You have not stated your position or what you believe the issue is. State the post number. It's not hard.

An egg fertilized for purposes of ivf is just as innocent as any. The brain dead are guilty of no crime.
 
Now I see your confusion. I did not argue that murderer has a right to life. He may not and the argument is he has forfeited it. But if the right to life is not the issue (as asshat claim) then what is. You're a fucking retard that took one sentence of my post out of context and defended asshat, when I clearly stated that a murderer is equal to a baby UNTIL we consider the "right to life."

Everything has to be spelled out to you idiots, like you are 3 years old. Even when that is done, as I clearly did, you get confused.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
Lucky for you. That's why you still roam free.:palm:
Click to expand...

You have yet to make anything but wildly inaccurate potshots. You are an idiot and I make you look the fool on a regular basis. You really need to quit denying your religion, or at least figure out some rational reason for accepting all of their tenets.

Still waiting. What is the issue, shit-for-brains?
 
RStringfield said:
You have yet to make anything but wildly inaccurate potshots. You are an idiot and I make you look the fool on a regular basis. You really need to quit denying your religion, or at least figure out some rational reason for accepting all of their tenets.

Still waiting. What is the issue, shit-for-brains?
Click to expand...

No. You don't even see the nascent nihilism in your statist reductivist moral reversalism, and poor thinking skills. You have been reduced to a quivering jelly of pseudorelevance.:good4u:
 
RStringfield said:
You have not stated your position or what you believe the issue is. State the post number. It's not hard.

An egg fertilized for purposes of ivf is just as innocent as any. The brain dead are guilty of no crime.
Click to expand...

My position is repeated at post 511; your assertion that I did not state a position is post 515.

My take on the actual position of the "Right to Life" is post 539; your mis-characterization of same is post 542.

Why do you want to kill babies Dick?
 
Ok, little hypothetical. Woman decides she does not want to be a mother, so she hires a man to end the life of her "child". He does it. In this instant this is the "child".

534077951_ec34a3ccbf.jpg


Same senario, only in this instance, this is the "child". (fetus at 6 weeks gestation.)

pregnancy-4.jpg


Should the punishment be the same?

Now lets say in the second instance, mom gets Goat's Rue, which is known to have abortifacient effects if taken in high enough doses. She takes it and it is successful. She aborts her child. Should she be punished as severly as the guy that killed the first child? As severly as the guy that killed the second one?

Should a mother be charged with conspiracy to murder if she hires a doctor to abort her fetus, assuming of course that Roe is no longer the law of the land?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Classic false dilemma.
Click to expand...
It is not a false dilemma. If child one and fetus one have the same exact right to life, then any negligent, careless, or intentional causing of the death of EITHER ONE should carry the same exact punishment. If I am driving a car and I am negligently speeding and I rear end another car killing a six year old in the back seat, I am going to be charged, in most states with negligent homicide. I knew or should have known my actions could cause the death or serious injury of another. Now, if I cause a pregnant woman to miscarry, in most states I will not get charged with negligent homocide. That is an injustice if both fetus and child are equal in their rights.
 
Socrtease said:
It is not a false dilemma. If child one and fetus one have the same exact right to life, then any negligent, careless, or intentional causing of the death of EITHER ONE should carry the same exact punishment. If I am driving a car and I am negligently speeding and I rear end another car killing a six year old in the back seat, I am going to be charged, in most states with negligent homicide. I knew or should have known my actions could cause the death or serious injury of another. Now, if I cause a pregnant woman to miscarry, in most states I will not get charged with negligent homocide. That is an injustice if both fetus and child are equal in their rights.
Click to expand...

They don't have the same right to life. We allow abortions.

they're both human beings though.
 
RStringfield said:
How does that help? It does not increase the probability of survival or implantation, idiot. It would only increase the costs and pain suffered by the hopeful mother.
Click to expand...
higher viability will result from greater attention to survival....as I recall you said deaths were the result of throwing babies at the uterine wall and hoping they stick.....I think we should give them a bit more attention than that....

You are to be concerned with the realities of your position, moron. There is no way to reliably store the surplus. The best designed system are hardly perfect. Many will die in the best of storage without any errors and the cost would be prohibitive.
Click to expand...
but there would be no surplus if done right....

Supposedly, these are babies, we are talking about. You can't just put a baby into cold storage (Bill Maher joke, actually), knowing that it will kill many and forget about it. That's obscene.
Click to expand...
no storage.....


100% success is not an option, dumb fuck. It is not even approachable. Over 90% of the ones USED die IN THE BEST CASE SCENARIO AVAILABLE and you ignore that as if it were unimportant. Meanwhile, you demand that we focus all attention on the rare cases of medically unnecessary pba's to make moral judgments about ALL abortions. Your position is absurd and illogical.
Click to expand...
apparently 100% is not an option because you are willing to kill 90%......there is no reason we have to accept a 90% loss......and I'm not sure your claim is even accurate....what is your source for a 90% loss factor?.....

???.....where have I demanded we focus all attention on anything?.......

You are okay with killing "babies" as you define baby.
Click to expand...
no, I'm not....
 
Socrtease said:
Ok, little hypothetical. Woman decides she does not want to be a mother, so she hires a man to end the life of her "child". He does it. In this instant this is the "child".

534077951_ec34a3ccbf.jpg


Same senario, only in this instance, this is the "child". (fetus at 6 weeks gestation.)

pregnancy-4.jpg


Should the punishment be the same?

Now lets say in the second instance, mom gets Goat's Rue, which is known to have abortifacient effects if taken in high enough doses. She takes it and it is successful. She aborts her child. Should she be punished as severly as the guy that killed the first child? As severly as the guy that killed the second one?

Should a mother be charged with conspiracy to murder if she hires a doctor to abort her fetus, assuming of course that Roe is no longer the law of the land?
Click to expand...

why is it a dilemma?......can you give me a logical, science based reason to treat one differently than the other?.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top