Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2023 16:08:48 GMT
You culture war people in the US are stark raving bonkers. It's like a disease with you people. You will never change your individual views, and just bang on and on on... Just agree to disagree. Where's the middle ground, understanding both sides? I don't like abortions, and think there are plenty of contraception options available to all now to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but also understand that sometimes for several reasons an abortion may be required. Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Good grief, I know what abortion is. I believe deliberate killing of ALL human and non human animals is wrong and sinful... If you are truly compassionate and concerned for the preservation of life, are you vegan? Killing animals to eat is never required... It also leads to starvation in the third world, and the destruction of God's creation.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 29, 2023 16:26:32 GMT
Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Good grief, I know what abortion is. I believe deliberate killing of ALL human and non human animals is wrong and sinful... If you are truly compassionate and concerned for the preservation of life, are you vegan? Killing animals to eat is never required... It also leads to starvation in the third world, and the destruction of God's creation. If you know abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being then why do you believe it is ever required for a woman to deliberately kill their innocent unborn human being?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2023 16:29:03 GMT
Good grief, I know what abortion is. I believe deliberate killing of ALL human and non human animals is wrong and sinful... If you are truly compassionate and concerned for the preservation of life, are you vegan? Killing animals to eat is never required... It also leads to starvation in the third world, and the destruction of God's creation. If you know abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being then why do you believe it is ever required for a woman to deliberately kill their innocent unborn human being? Do you eat innocent non-human souls?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 29, 2023 17:26:35 GMT
Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Good grief, I know what abortion is. I believe deliberate killing of ALL human and non human animals is wrong and sinful... If you are truly compassionate and concerned for the preservation of life, are you vegan? Killing animals to eat is never required... It also leads to starvation in the third world, and the destruction of God's creation.
Care to explain that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2023 17:30:20 GMT
Good grief, I know what abortion is. I believe deliberate killing of ALL human and non human animals is wrong and sinful... If you are truly compassionate and concerned for the preservation of life, are you vegan? Killing animals to eat is never required... It also leads to starvation in the third world, and the destruction of God's creation.
Care to explain that?
Ecological science, trophic levels, 10% rule. That should give you enough leads to look up (stick to academic papers, not YouTube cranks)... I can try and sum it up very briefly if you need?
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jul 29, 2023 17:52:54 GMT
Do you believe that bodily autonomy is an absolute right? If your answer is yes then do you believe a woman should be legally allowed to drink and/or do drugs during pregnancy to purposely inflict a disability on the unborn child? Its cute that you think this is some sort of "gotcha question"
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jul 29, 2023 17:53:39 GMT
No, because that would cause harm to the child after it's born, just as physical/sexual abuse of a living child is unconscionable. Aborting a fetus before it's viable is not the same thing. And if a woman is a heavy drinker or drug addict and becomes pregnant, all the more reason for her to have an abortion rather than bring an affected fetus to term.
If pro-choicers care so much about killing babies BEFORE they suffer, how come they don't try to pass laws to legalize killing kids who ARE suffering? We've heard more than once ALL the kids in foster care would be better off dead, and if you asked the kids themselves, they would agree with it...strangely enough the people who say this don't make a habit of actually asking foster kids 'do you think you'd rather be dead?', just like they're very quick to say kids with x, y or z syndromes, disabilities, handicaps, etc., would be better off dead, none of which have the balls to go to any said person's face and TELL them they'd be better off dead. Why not?
And they sure wouldn't want to tell a rape baby they should've been killed before they were born, because some of them would be looking into a mirror, or talking to their mother, their grandmother, their sister, brother, spouse, best friend, etc.
And on the subject of rape, I don't understand why it's okay to kill the baby that was MAYBE conceived in rape, but the same people don't demand laws that give women the right to kill their rapists anytime anywhere because that'll be healing for them and give them closure. One person summed it up as 'oh well she might be MISTAKEN', ergo the WRONG man would be killed, oh but even if the guy DIDN'T rape her, he TOTALLY put that rape baby in her so it has to die instead? Yeah, doesn't compute, does it?
If only the anti-choice people cared as much about the child after its born, as they do about it before its born.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2023 18:24:45 GMT
If pro-choicers care so much about killing babies BEFORE they suffer, how come they don't try to pass laws to legalize killing kids who ARE suffering? We've heard more than once ALL the kids in foster care would be better off dead, and if you asked the kids themselves, they would agree with it...strangely enough the people who say this don't make a habit of actually asking foster kids 'do you think you'd rather be dead?', just like they're very quick to say kids with x, y or z syndromes, disabilities, handicaps, etc., would be better off dead, none of which have the balls to go to any said person's face and TELL them they'd be better off dead. Why not?
And they sure wouldn't want to tell a rape baby they should've been killed before they were born, because some of them would be looking into a mirror, or talking to their mother, their grandmother, their sister, brother, spouse, best friend, etc.
And on the subject of rape, I don't understand why it's okay to kill the baby that was MAYBE conceived in rape, but the same people don't demand laws that give women the right to kill their rapists anytime anywhere because that'll be healing for them and give them closure. One person summed it up as 'oh well she might be MISTAKEN', ergo the WRONG man would be killed, oh but even if the guy DIDN'T rape her, he TOTALLY put that rape baby in her so it has to die instead? Yeah, doesn't compute, does it?
If only the anti-choice people cared as much about the child after its born, as they do about it before its born. Evangelical fundos right to life doesn't extend beyond the womb... Those born in to poverty and inequality can go fuck themselves.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 18:55:05 GMT
It's [child rape] obviously favored by some majority since CA struck down a bill that would make human trafficking a felony punishable by severe prison sentences. No, obviously CA wants it to be a crime you can do a wrist slap on, and then get right back to a multi billion dollar a year industry. It's obviously favored by a majority since public schools are full of explicit, violent, rape, child, incest, pornography books that they deem perfectly acceptable for school children to read, and recite in class, but they don't want parents reciting any passages in front of the school board. If any random guy on the street gave a 10 year old a porn book, his ass would be in jail, a teacher does it, oh you don't want kids to learn. teachers are SOOOOOO underpaid if one can post $50,000 bond for stalking and sexually harassing a teenager Now right NOW the majority might say grown ass adults having sex with kids is wrong and shouldn't be legalized, but is that going to be the case after a generation or two of 'naked drag queens hugging kids is perfectly fine, kids seeing grown men's genitalia in public is harmless, men showering with teenage girls in school is totally acceptable, kids need to read graphic pornography of 7 year olds being raped by their daddies and taught if a girl's crying during sex just shove your dick in her mouth to shut her up, because that's going to make them well rounded and prepare them for the real world, and just don't tell your parents anything because they're a bunch of phobes who don't know anything'? You really think there's NO agenda here whatsoever, and wasn't 20 years ago when they first invented thong underwear for toddlers, or 2 years ago when Cuties was made? Oh, and majority doesn't approve of this? Why are SO many people attacking Sound of Freedom? Calling it false, a conspiracy theory, a MISREPRESENTATION of child trafficking, calling it AS BAD as actually trafficking kids, and movie theaters sabotaging showings so people can't see it? Why is all the mainstream media attacking a movie that says child trafficking is evil?
Your moral prurience is showing again. If this exercises you so much, and you seem to like repeating such lurid and unsubstantiated hyperbole, larded with rhetorical questions, why not just start a thread which actually focuses on the issues? Oh and as reminded before, YouTube is not a news channel. That you have spent so long seeking these things out, to make a point which is not the subject of this thread, again tells us much more about you than anything else. Also, try not to bang the keyboard too hard, I can hear it from here....
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 29, 2023 18:59:46 GMT
If pro-choicers care so much about killing babies BEFORE they suffer, how come they don't try to pass laws to legalize killing kids who ARE suffering? We've heard more than once ALL the kids in foster care would be better off dead, and if you asked the kids themselves, they would agree with it...strangely enough the people who say this don't make a habit of actually asking foster kids 'do you think you'd rather be dead?', just like they're very quick to say kids with x, y or z syndromes, disabilities, handicaps, etc., would be better off dead, none of which have the balls to go to any said person's face and TELL them they'd be better off dead. Why not? And they sure wouldn't want to tell a rape baby they should've been killed before they were born, because some of them would be looking into a mirror, or talking to their mother, their grandmother, their sister, brother, spouse, best friend, etc. And on the subject of rape, I don't understand why it's okay to kill the baby that was MAYBE conceived in rape, but the same people don't demand laws that give women the right to kill their rapists anytime anywhere because that'll be healing for them and give them closure. One person summed it up as 'oh well she might be MISTAKEN', ergo the WRONG man would be killed, oh but even if the guy DIDN'T rape her, he TOTALLY put that rape baby in her so it has to die instead? Yeah, doesn't compute, does it?
If only the anti-choice people cared as much about the child after it’s born, as they do about it before it’s born. The pro-life argument is simply about the unborn’s rights. That it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, before or after birth. It is about being a voice and protecting the right to life of the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable and defenseless human beings there is, which is the foundational right for everything else. And FYI many pro-lifers do help women and children through charitable means. Probably a lot more than pro-choicers do. Also FYI the majority of pro-lifers are women.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2023 19:06:33 GMT
If only the anti-choice people cared as much about the child after it’s born, as they do about it before it’s born. The pro-life argument is simply about the unborn’s rights. That it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, before or after birth. It is about being a voice and protecting the right to life of the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable and defenseless human beings there is, which is the foundational right for everything else. And FYI many pro-lifers do help women and children through charitable means. Probably a lot more than pro-choicers do. Also FYI the majority of pro-lifers are women. Not protecting the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable though are you... Your personal lust for the flesh of innocent souls you self justify.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 19:16:39 GMT
If only the anti-choice people cared as much about the child after it’s born, as they do about it before it’s born. The pro-life argument is simply about the unborn’s rights. That it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, before or after birth. It is about being a voice and protecting the right to life of the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable and defenseless human beings there is, which is the foundational right for everything else. And FYI many pro-lifers do help women and children through charitable means. Probably a lot more than pro-choicers do. Also FYI the majority of pro-lifers are women. Most international human rights charters "clearly reject claims that human rights should attach from conception or any time before birth." ( Copelon, Rhonda; Zampas, Christina; Brusie, Elizabeth; deVore, Jacqueline (January 2005). "Human Rights Begin at Birth: International Law and the Claim of Foetal Rights". Several organizations, such as World Health Organization (WHO) and Human Rights Watch prioritize women's reproductive rights over fetal rights. Under European law, a fetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother. In UK law a foetus doesn’t have rights. An unborn baby doesn’t become a separate person with legal rights until they are born and draw breath by themselves. Conversely while international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of the foetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, the foetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries. The only modern international treaty specifically tackling the fetal rights is the American Convention on Human Rights which envisages the fetal right to life from the moment of conception. The convention was ratified by twenty five countries of the Americas (two countries later denounced the convention leading the current number of ratifiers to be twenty three in 1973–1993. Mexico ratified the convention with the reservation that the expression "in general" concerning the foetal right to life does not constitute an obligation. Just sayin'. As already mentioned most abortions happen in the earliest weeks or pregnancy where what emerges is similar to mucus. While it is fine in theory to say that a human being exists from the moment of conception, the reality is that is is hard to consider a newly fertilized gamete or such mucus as 'persons' or 'a human being' without stretching the term somewhat. Not according to 2023 Gallup research. news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 29, 2023 19:24:27 GMT
The pro-life argument is simply about the unborn’s rights. That it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, before or after birth. It is about being a voice and protecting the right to life of the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable and defenseless human beings there is, which is the foundational right for everything else. And FYI many pro-lifers do help women and children through charitable means. Probably a lot more than pro-choicers do. Also FYI the majority of pro-lifers are women. Most international human rights charters "clearly reject claims that human rights should attach from conception or any time before birth." ( Copelon, Rhonda; Zampas, Christina; Brusie, Elizabeth; deVore, Jacqueline (January 2005). "Human Rights Begin at Birth: International Law and the Claim of Foetal Rights". Several organizations, such as World Health Organization (WHO) and Human Rights Watch prioritize women's reproductive rights over fetal rights. Under European law, a fetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother. In UK law a foetus doesn’t have rights. An unborn baby doesn’t become a separate person with legal rights until they are born and draw breath by themselves. Conversely while international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of the foetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, the foetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries. The only modern international treaty specifically tackling the fetal rights is the American Convention on Human Rights which envisages the fetal right to life from the moment of conception. The convention was ratified by twenty five countries of the Americas (two countries later denounced the convention leading the current number of ratifiers to be twenty three in 1973–1993. Mexico ratified the convention with the reservation that the expression "in general" concerning the foetal right to life does not constitute an obligation. Just sayin'. Not according to 2023 Gallup research. news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspxBetween both genders whom are both pro-life, women out number men.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2023 19:50:40 GMT
If pro-choicers care so much about killing babies BEFORE they suffer, how come they don't try to pass laws to legalize killing kids who ARE suffering? We've heard more than once ALL the kids in foster care would be better off dead, and if you asked the kids themselves, they would agree with it...strangely enough the people who say this don't make a habit of actually asking foster kids 'do you think you'd rather be dead?', just like they're very quick to say kids with x, y or z syndromes, disabilities, handicaps, etc., would be better off dead, none of which have the balls to go to any said person's face and TELL them they'd be better off dead. Why not? And they sure wouldn't want to tell a rape baby they should've been killed before they were born, because some of them would be looking into a mirror, or talking to their mother, their grandmother, their sister, brother, spouse, best friend, etc. And on the subject of rape, I don't understand why it's okay to kill the baby that was MAYBE conceived in rape, but the same people don't demand laws that give women the right to kill their rapists anytime anywhere because that'll be healing for them and give them closure. One person summed it up as 'oh well she might be MISTAKEN', ergo the WRONG man would be killed, oh but even if the guy DIDN'T rape her, he TOTALLY put that rape baby in her so it has to die instead? Yeah, doesn't compute, does it?
If only the anti-choice people cared as much about the child after its born, as they do about it before its born. Newborns are protected. The so-called “anti-choice people” want to extend that same protection to the unborn because they care as much about the child before it’s born as they do about it after it’s born.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 29, 2023 19:53:06 GMT
If only the anti-choice people cared as much about the child after its born, as they do about it before its born. Newborns are protected. The so-called “anti-choice people” want to extend that same protection to the unborn because they care as much about the child before it’s born as they do about it after it’s born. He’s just repeating a mindless pro-choice slogan he’s heard repeatedly.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2023 20:26:25 GMT
Newborns are protected. The so-called “anti-choice people” want to extend that same protection to the unborn because they care as much about the child before it’s born as they do about it after it’s born. He’s just repeating a mindless pro-choice slogan he’s heard repeatedly. People who say that don't seem to understand what the choice really is. They spin "pro life" into "anti choice" without realizing that even they are "anti choice" post-birth.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2023 20:52:26 GMT
That's an adequate example of the latter. Never the less the campaign showed how important a law change was to the imposition of a moral position. Laws should be based on morality, not the other way around. To say killing isn't murder when it's legal is to hide behind judicial jargon. RvW was overturned to protect the unborn, but it upset the "pro-choice people" because it hindered their right to kill.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 21:06:40 GMT
Never the less the campaign showed how important a law change was to the imposition of a moral position. Laws should be based on morality, not the other way around. I agree. Tell that to someone who fights to defend his country for instance, Should we put them on trial? Or if one defends oneself against an armed intruder? A doctor who withdraws life maintaining treatment from from the certified brain dead? Or what can we say about the Stand Your Ground law in that hotbed of immorality, Texas, as well as 37 other states? As already mentioned there is no legal jurisdiction that does not necessarily recognise different types of killing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_lawLegally kill, yes. But the objections are more predicated around the right of women over their own bodies and healthcare especially when we know that most abortions are early on and involve expelling a type of mucus.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 21:12:49 GMT
Pew say majorities of both men and women express support for legal abortion, though women are somewhat more likely than men to hold this view (63% vs. 58%). www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/All these surveys show is that women care most about the abortion issue. Not surprising since it is their rights being taken away in outlier and would-be theocracy US.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2023 21:33:06 GMT
Laws should be based on morality, not the other way around. I agree. Tell that to someone who fights to defend his country for instance, Should we put them on trial? Or if one defends oneself against an armed intruder? Or what can we say about the Stand Your Ground law in that hotbed of immorality, Texas as well as 37 other states? As already mentioned there is no legal jurisdiction that does not necessarily recognise different types of killing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_lawLegally kill, yes. But the objections are more predicated around the right of women over their own bodies and healthcare especially when we know that most abortions are early on and involve expelling a type of mucus. Defend your country, defend your life, defend your property, but don't defend the unborn lest you be labeled an anti-choice nutbag who wants to control women and suppress their right to kill. That tired old straw man is almost as irrational as equating abortion with blowing your nose.
|
|