Siding with Death

#151

TheDredPriateRoberts

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

TheDredPriateRoberts

11.21.2018 07:56PM

3

6

11.21.2018 07:56PM

-->

@3RU7AL

99.9999% of sperm die attempting to locate the ovum.

lol going to call you stretch from now on.

It is immaterial to immigration law, whether the person lives or dies after deportation.

Get out of my country (womb) and fend for yourself, blood sucking freeloaders!!!!!!!!

I say 95% of who are deported don't die because of the deportation, prove me wrong.

they were living just fine before entering the country illegally so your comparison is off the wall, come on stretch please try to do better.

#152

TheDredPriateRoberts

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

TheDredPriateRoberts

11.21.2018 08:00PM

3

6

11.21.2018 08:00PM

-->

@3RU7AL

(IFF) an immortal human soul sparks into existence at the very moment of conception (THEN) every woman who fails to take every possible measure to prevent a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter.

We are going to talk about souls now? Not interested.

I really don't care if abortion is murder or not.

But if you are going to call it murder, be consistent and call negligent miscarriage manslaughter.

DNR is not manslaughter.

Identify your axioms, and follow them 100% to their logical conclusions.

(IFF) all life is precious (THEN) stop killing people and prioritize life saving healthcare.

that's your opinion that all life is precious, I've never stated mine, stretch.

#153

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.21.2018 08:17PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 08:17PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

It is immaterial to immigration law, whether the person lives or dies after deportation.

Your cries of "prove me wrong" are simultaneously an appeal to ignorance and a red herring.

#154

TheDredPriateRoberts

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

TheDredPriateRoberts

11.21.2018 08:25PM

3

6

11.21.2018 08:25PM

-->

@3RU7AL

ok stretch, so you've dropped the idea of some crazy comparison of deportation to killing whatever it is in the womb? If so let's move on. Given a choice between deportation or certain death which do you think most people would choose? See why I think it's so absurd?

#155

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.21.2018 08:38PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 08:38PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

We are going to talk about souls now? Not interested.

Excellent red herring maneuver.

DNR is not manslaughter.

DNR is not miscarriage.

that's your opinion that all life is precious, I've never stated mine, stretch.

You and me and 99.99999% of the human population believe that some life is more precious than others.

#156

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.21.2018 08:42PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 08:42PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

Given a choice between deportation or certain death which do you think most people would choose?

Your hypothetical is immaterial.

We do not let people come into this country simply because they came from a deadly environment.

Once they are rejected and or deported (regardless of age), nobody cares if they live or die.

#157

keithprosser

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

keithprosser

11.21.2018 08:47PM

3

11.21.2018 08:47PM

so if they can suffer, then what? still ok?

by 'still ok' i suppose you mean that very early abortions are not really problematical. I believe that is so. The only people who don't think that way are fanatics and extremists who are not going to be swayed by reason anyway.

I think if we are going to protect peoples lives with the law then it should extend back to the point when the foetus can suffer. That isn't an easy point to identify, but 24 weeks has emerged as a common guesstimate.

In this imperfect world where pragmatics trumps morality I'd say abortion should be possible almost upto full term, but only in extreme cases and after (say) 32 weeks an abortion would be illegal. The approriate punishment is hard to say - why would woman wait so long? Hopefully such late abortions would be rare enough to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

#158

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.21.2018 09:00PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 09:00PM

-->

@keithprosser

...why would woman wait so long?

Major life change.

Husband or boyfriend left.

Financial collapse.

Physical or psychological complications.

You can lose hope for your future at any moment.

#159

TheDredPriateRoberts

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

TheDredPriateRoberts

11.21.2018 09:07PM

3

6

11.21.2018 09:07PM

-->

@3RU7AL

you brought up souls, I didn't

every woman who fails to take every possible measure to prevent a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter.

Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), also known as no code or allow natural death

You and me and 99.99999% of the human population believe that some life is more precious than others.

some=/=all

Once they are rejected and or deported (regardless of age), nobody cares if they live or die.

you presume to speak for everyone? awww come on stretch geez.

#160

TheDredPriateRoberts

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

TheDredPriateRoberts

11.21.2018 09:09PM

3

6

11.21.2018 09:09PM

-->

@keithprosser

fair enough

#161

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.21.2018 10:32PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 10:32PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

you brought up souls, I didn't

You sidestepped the argument with a red herring. I don't care about "souls". Run for the hills everyone!!!! It's METAPHYSICS!!!!!!!!!!!

Look,

(IFF) a fully individual human with the full protection of the law sparks into existence at the very moment of conception (THEN) every woman who fails to take every possible measure to prevent a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter.

(IFF) someone fails to have the foresight to get a pre-natal checkup to make sure they are healthy enough to bear a child and or indulges excessively in alcoholism and or other high risk behavior then has multiple miscarriages, how is this not considered criminal negligence or manslaughter or child endangerment or child abuse (IFF) every zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo is considered to be an individual human with the full protection of the law?

Certainly some miscarriages are "natural" but only if the mother is reasonably responsible and physically healthy.

(IFF) every zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo is considered to be an individual human with the full protection of the law (THEN) every preventable miscarriage is a criminal act.

Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), also known as no code or allow natural death

If someone is on life support and the doctor/hospital staff fails to provide a proper (contaminated or inadequate) intravenous drip and or trips over the cord causing the machinery to fail, this is criminal negligence and or malpractice and or manslaughter.

You and me and 99.99999% of the human population believe that some life is more precious than others.
some=/=all

Hairsplitting, nice. So, no logical conclusion?

I'm pointing out specifically that certain people who claim "all life is precious" don't follow that maxim to its logical conclusion.

Once they are rejected and or deported (regardless of age), nobody cares if they live or die.
you presume to speak for everyone? awww come on stretch geez.

Specifically the same people who claim "all life is precious" don't seem to care if deportees are in physical danger.

#162

TheDredPriateRoberts

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

TheDredPriateRoberts

11.21.2018 11:23PM

3

6

11.21.2018 11:23PM

-->

@3RU7AL

(IFF) a fully individual human with the full protection of the law sparks into existence at the very moment of conception (THEN) every woman who fails to take every possible measure to prevent a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter.

except there are D.N.R. laws, she is making a D.N.R. decision for her baby, where are you getting confused?

(IFF) someone fails to have the foresight to get a pre-natal checkup to make sure they are healthy enough to bear a child and or indulges excessively in alcoholism and or other high risk behavior then has multiple miscarriages, how is this not considered criminal negligence or manslaughter or child endangerment or child abuse (IFF) every zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo is considered to be an individual human with the full protection of the law?

Again D.N.R. means you don't have to receive or can refuse treatment. I believe there are laws pertaining to certain high risk behavior, but they are rarely if ever enforced.

If someone is on life support and the doctor/hospital staff fails to provide a proper (contaminated or inadequate) intravenous drip and or trips over the cord causing the machinery to fail, this is criminal negligence and or malpractice and or manslaughter.

and? How is that relevant to an individual or lawful designee making a decision? and you talk about red herring?

Specifically the same people who claim "all life is precious" don't seem to care if deportees are in physical danger.

danger =/= certain death, abortion is certain death, you've stretched your self into knots.

yes everyone is a hypocrite to some degree, what of it?

I'm trying to understand the position you are taking, even though it appears a devil's advocate one, which is fine. If I understand you correctly....

Life starts at conception and the spark of life is a soul (something like that)

All human life is precious

Because all life is precious, in every instance, everything possible should be done to protect or ensure that life (miscarriage, immigration)

is that about right? Anything I missed?

#163

mustardness

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

3

mustardness

11.21.2018 11:41PM

2

3

11.21.2018 11:41PM

-->

@keithprosser

In this imperfect world where pragmatics trumps morality I'd say abortion should be possible almost upto full term, but only in extreme cases and after (say) 32 weeks an abortion would be illegal. The approriate punishment is hard to say - why would woman wait so long? Hopefully such late abortions would be rare enough to be considered on a case-by-case basis"The abortion pill is very effective. For people who are 8 weeks pregnant or less, it works about 98 out of 100 times. From 8-9 weeks pregnant, it works about 96 out of 100 times. From 9-10 weeks, it works 91-93 out of 100 times.The abortion pill usually works, but if it doesn’t, you can take more medicine or have an in-clinic abortion to complete the abortion.

It starts with community of rational, logical common sense people/humanity, who;

1} intellectually grasp pregnancy prevention, and.

2} do not opposed pregnancy prevention for any reason.

3} making sure such prevention is readily availble to those who need it most ---sex driven 14 - 25 year olds---.

Then there is next issue of abortion when humanity falls short of applying the above prevention measures;

....."The abortion pill is very effective. For people who are 8 weeks pregnant or less, it works about 98 out of 100 times. From 8-9 weeks pregnant, it works about 96 out of 100 times. From 9-10 weeks, it works 91-93 out of 100 times.
The abortion pill usually works, but if it doesn’t, you can take more medicine or have an in-clinic abortion to complete the abortion."...

Duhh, any adult humans with rational, logical common sense reading this?

Then we come to abortions beyond the pill for whatever reasons at any stage of the pregnant womans gestation period;

1} keep your ____n nose *v*out of their bodies unless they give their consent.

What should be the most rare is the latter above.

Topic's author

#164

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

ethang5

11.22.2018 10:28AM

3

6

11.22.2018 10:28AM

You say,

Conservatives Side with - Greedy pharmaceutical corporations, overdoses and death and prohibition style criminal

And are against - Personal sovereignty and the right to decide how much suffering is reasonable

The you say, Outlawing dangerous and or deadly substances has nothing to do with privacy.

So I ask you, Then how are conservatives against Personal sovereignty and the right to decide how much suffering is reasonable?

You can't answer.

You ask, Can't break a deadly addiction? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"

So whose fault is it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The liberal again can't say.

#165

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.23.2018 03:48PM

3

4

9

11.23.2018 03:48PM

-->

@ethang5

Conservatives Side with - Greedy pharmaceutical corporations, overdoses and death and prohibition style criminal
And are against - Personal sovereignty and the right to decide how much suffering is reasonable

Sounds right.

The you say, Outlawing dangerous and or deadly substances has nothing to do with privacy.

Yes, and?

So I ask you, Then how are conservatives against Personal sovereignty and the right to decide how much suffering is reasonable?

Imagine a woman's body is a sovereign nation. She decides to deport a foreign invader. This is her right as a sovereign nation. If another country (or countries) tried to create a law that would stop her from deporting foreign invaders, that would violate her sovereignty.

If a sovereign nation decides to dissolve itself, it has the right to do this and it is unreasonable for another nation to attempt to block this action.

If a sovereign individual decides they want to die, they should have the right to do this and it is unreasonable for another person to attempt to block this action.

You can't answer.

This naked taunt is provably false.

You ask, Can't break a deadly addiction? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"
So whose fault is it?

Axiomatically speaking, addiction is defined as a behavior that an individual cannot freely choose to stop themselves.

So it would seem that the manufacturer and or distributor and or the promoter of addictive substances and behaviors would be primarily responsible.

But the blame game is not the point here.

The point is, if someone claims they believe "all life is precious", then it really shouldn't matter "who is responsible".

If someone wants help, for example, affordable healthcare and or rehabilitation services, someone who believes "all life is precious" would logically be in favor of providing affordable healthcare and or rehabilitation services even if only to SAVE MORE PRECIOUS LIVES.

#166

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.23.2018 04:57PM

3

4

9

11.23.2018 04:57PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

I'm trying to understand the position you are taking, even though it appears a devil's advocate one, which is fine. If I understand you correctly....
Life starts at conception and the spark of life is a soul (something like that)
All human life is precious
Because all life is precious, in every instance, everything possible should be done to protect or ensure that life (miscarriage, immigration)
is that about right? Anything I missed?

That sounds about right.

(IFF) all life is precious (THEN) act like all life is precious.

(IFF) some life is more precious than other life (THEN) just say that.

#167

TheDredPriateRoberts

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

TheDredPriateRoberts

11.23.2018 05:15PM

3

6

11.23.2018 05:15PM

-->

@3RU7AL

(IFF) all life is precious (THEN) act like all life is precious.

(IFF) some life is more precious than other life (THEN) just say that.

and if all life is precious then food, healthcare, all that is needed to sustain a life is a right, in so far as it must be provided when it can't be otherwise be gotten.

though I think the difference in all of this is the purposeful, knowingly and intentionally killing of (x) this seems to be the line drawn. Letting things follow a natural course doesn't mean something isn't "precious" nor does it mean I must give up anything in order to provide life sustaining (x). Accountability.

So just because you don't want babies killed doesn't mean all extreme measures should be taken to preserve all lives, even if we consider all of them precious.

I don't see it as an all or nothing issue for those very reasons.

#168

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.23.2018 05:33PM

3

4

9

11.23.2018 05:33PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

the argument that the woman has some kind of special right, or right at all due to dependency when it's inside her vs when it's not, isn't correct or logical.

And then you say,

except there are D.N.R. laws, she is making a D.N.R. decision for her baby, where are you getting confused?

You seem to suggest that a mother has the right to determine if an embryo lives or dies, but not because of dependency.

If you categorically exclude dependency, then why would a mother have the right to make a DNR decision for anyone other than herself?

#169

TheDredPriateRoberts

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

TheDredPriateRoberts

11.23.2018 05:39PM

3

6

11.23.2018 05:39PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Killing, knowingly, wilfully isn't the same as letting nature take it's cource, this is where society has drawn a line in most instances. Dnr can be used to make decisions for those who can not.

#170

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.23.2018 06:05PM

3

4

9

11.23.2018 06:05PM

-->

@ethang5

Ok, so when you said that it was more realistic to try and save the lives of every human that has already been born, and less realistic to try and save the lives of every embryo that has yet to be born,
Please show where I said this. You abortion people always get so emotional. I have no clue why you think I said this.

...and you refused to explain why you decided to choose the latter rather than the former,
I don't have to explain anything to you, especially things I didn't say. I'm sure you have your pro-life caricature in your mind, but please debate me and not him.

Here you go,

Saving every human being on earth that has already been born is much more realistic than trying to save every unborn embryo.
Perhaps, but...
1. I am in no way obligated to prioritize what you think is relialistic.
2. Only what I am able to do is realistic.

You chose to dodge the question by suggesting that what may or may not be considered "more realistic" is immaterial to your decision making process.

Link to your quote

If this is incorrect, please present your logical reasoning for prioritizing the rescue of other people's embryos over post-natal human beings.

Topic's author

#171

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

ethang5

11.23.2018 06:17PM

3

6

11.23.2018 06:17PM

Conservatives Side with - Greedy pharmaceutical corporations, overdoses and death and prohibition style criminal
And are against - Personal sovereignty and the right to decide how much suffering is reasonable

Sounds right.

The you say, Outlawing dangerous and or deadly substances has nothing to do with privacy.

Yes, and?

Then we are right to allow a drug addict to decide how much suffering is reasonable. Think.

Axiomatically speaking, addiction is defined as a behavior that an individual cannot freely choose to stop themselves

Absolute stupidity. Was the person born addicted? Liberals are against personal sovereignty because they are against personal responsibility.

But the blame game is not the point here.

Personal sovereignty without responsibility? How like a liberal.

The point is, if someone claims they believe "all life is precious", then it really shouldn't matter "who is responsible".

We aren't idiots. You can't have personal sovereignty without responsibility. Because life is precious is the reason why who is responsible matters.

If someone wants help, for example, affordable healthcare and or rehabilitation services,....

And why can't this person pay for these services themselves? They spend all their money shooting up, smoking, and on tattoos, and then they now want someone else to pay?

...someone who believes "all life is precious" would logically be in favor of providing affordable healthcare and or rehabilitation services even if only to SAVE MORE PRECIOUS LIVES.

If life was precious to this dweeb, he wouldn't have polluted it with junk. I will spend my limited money on people who really deserve it. Not scuzzy drug addicts and skanks who treated life like it was a toilet.

But the liberal, who isn't paying, and often isn't even working, has no problem taking money from people who make it, to gave to deadbeats who only suck the vitality out of society.

No thanks.

Topic's author

#172

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

ethang5

11.23.2018 06:33PM

3

6

11.23.2018 06:33PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Here you go,

Saving every human being on earth that has already been born is much more realistic than trying to save every unborn embryo.

You said this slick. Not me. You are confused.

Perhaps, but...

1. I am in no way obligated to prioritize what you think is relialistic.
2. Only what I am able to do is realistic.

You chose to dodge the question by suggesting that what may or may not be considered "more realistic" is immaterial to your decision making process.

I can't dodge my own question billy-bob. I said I was not obligated to prioritize what you think is realislistic. You are the one who thinks that saving every human being on earth that has already been born is much more realistic than trying to save every unborn embryo. Why would I say anything that stupid?

Link to your quote

If this is incorrect,....

It is incorrect. I did not say, "Saving every human being on earth that has already been born is much more realistic than trying to save every unborn embryo." You said it. I would never say anything that stupid.

#173

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.23.2018 07:04PM

3

4

9

11.23.2018 07:04PM

-->

@ethang5

It is incorrect. I did not say, "Saving every human being on earth that has already been born is much more realistic than trying to save every unborn embryo." You said it. I would never say anything that stupid.

So is it fair to say you believe that saving every unborn embryo is much more realistic than trying to save every post-natal human being?

So is it fair to say that you have no logical basis for this belief?

So is it fair to say that you refuse to present any logical basis for this belief even though you vaguely and stridently insist that it is perfectly logical?

Topic's author

#174

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

ethang5

11.23.2018 07:54PM

3

6

11.23.2018 07:54PM

It is incorrect. I did not say, "Saving every human being on earth that has already been born is much more realistic than trying to save every unborn embryo." You said it. I would never say anything that stupid.

So is it fair to say you believe that saving every unborn embryo is much more realistic than trying to save every post-natal human being?

Not only is it unfair, it is stupid. Is that what you are aiming for? Neither one is realistic jasper. Everyone cannot be saved, no matter what your liberal mind tells you.

So is it fair to say that you have no logical basis for this belief?

No, that is stupid too. What belief would that be?

So is it fair to say that you refuse to present any logical basis for this belief....

What belief? Do you even know?

..even though you vaguely and stridently insist that it is perfectly logical?

"It" what?

You've entered the stupid zone. This is where I get off.

#175

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.23.2018 08:11PM

3

4

9

11.23.2018 08:11PM

-->

@ethang5

Neither one is realistic jasper. Everyone cannot be saved

Interesting, so why, according to a "logical worldview" would you choose to expend your time and energy to save embryos over post-natal humans?

#176

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.23.2018 08:18PM

3

4

9

11.23.2018 08:18PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

Killing, knowingly, wilfully isn't the same as letting nature take it's cource, this is where society has drawn a line in most instances. Dnr can be used to make decisions for those who can not.

Deportation, knowingly, willfully isn't the same as letting nature take its course, this is where society has drawn a line in most instances.

Ok, the DNR thing makes a little bit of sense, thank you for taking the time to explain.

However, I'm pretty sure the "all life is precious" crowd also hates assisted suicide and DNR.

Topic's author

#177

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

ethang5

11.23.2018 08:50PM

3

6

11.23.2018 08:50PM