Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If the woman has rights and the fetus has rights, then one necessarily does not have inalienable rights.And that is where your position fails.
No, my position does not extend rights to the fetus, and there is no revocation of rights. This is a flaw exclusive to views holding that personhood occurs at conception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
A consistent position would have been:"A baby is a person, but the sovereignty of the mother is a higher right and as long as the baby and mother are inseparable, the rights of the mother trumps"
If the woman has rights and the fetus has rights, then one necessarily does not have inalienable rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I can already here the defense: "Well, you see, your honor, ...yes, we were drunk, and ...yes, I would have never slept with her otherwise, but I MEANT to get her pregnant...REALLY!!"If you want to end abortion, just castrate any man who gets a woman pregnant accidentally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Is an embryo in an artificial womb a person?Given that it is not a part of another being's body and extending rights would not necessarily infringe on the rights of others, I personally see no reason why an embryo in an artificial womb should not be considered a person.Persons are not persons because they are "considered" persons.
Ok. So, other than the language I've used, we agree on the personhood of embryos in artificial wombs. Sweet.
Personhood is an inalienable right.
Friend, personhood is not a right, but a designation indicating a being with rights. I agree rights are inalienable though and the bodily autonomy of a woman (whether she be pregnant or not) is one of those rights.
Inalienable: Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor. [1]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Given that it is not a part of another being's body and extending rights would not necessarily infringe on the rights of others, I personally see no reason why an embryo in an artificial womb should not be considered a person.Is an embryo in an artificial womb a person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No one said that reproduction was required of every individual. That is just the spin you need to put on it to keep your "homosexuals are natural" POV going.The primary purpose of evolution is reproduction. That is not meant as an affront to homosexuality. It is just a fact. And even heterosexuals can be celibate.Don't allow fear and politically correct groupthink to turn you into an irrational lemming. I know you, we always disagree, but you are nowhere as dumb as 3RU7AL.Calling a baby an invader is stupidity of the highest order. 3RU7AL seems to think stupidity will work where emotion failed. Life is short, I have no time for deliberate stupidity.Your justification for abortion is that you do not believe the embryo is a human person before a certain time. All that other stuff about immigrants, and invaders is just the stupidity of a progressive idiot thinking he can avert a loss by being an obtuse moron.It actually weakens your core argument.
Obviously, I don't understand Dread's position and he has no desire to continue so I really don't see the point of arguing with you about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Clearly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. How does this purpose of evolution relate to denying the right to abort a pregnancy?another poster was incorrectly using the term foreign invader, then comparing it to cancer or other abnormal things. I never said denying the right to abort a pregnancy (3rd time correcting you now) perhaps go back and read from the beginning as I don't wish to constantly repeat myself.
If you don't want to provide clarification when asked, then perhaps you don't want to be understood. I have no correction for that. Best of luck to you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The "primary purpose" of evolution and biology (if it makes sense to say there is a purpose to evolution or biology) is not reproduction - it is survival, and survival does not require the birth of every conception.This is wrong.
I agree. Evolution without some reproduction does not work. However, some reproduction is not the same as reproduction being required of every individual and this is certainly what we find in nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
...but I bet you do know of a species in which not all individuals reproduce.remember that species that survived but didn't reproduce? Me either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Clearly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. How does this purpose of evolution relate to denying the right to abort a pregnancy?who said anything about every conception? This is the 2nd time I've had to correct you, I clearly said there are too many exceptions to deal with so i'm not going there.
Created:
Posted in:
If the purpose of human life is reproduction, what a woeful existence that would be for those unable to fulfill that purpose. Is there no purpose to be had in old age?the biological purpose, don't omit the words I use because it takes what I say out of context.Besides, even in nature, a population with no checks on reproduction will reproduce itself to extinction. Assuming for the sake of argument there were an intrinsic purpose to life, reproduction is overly simplistic summary.checks like starvation and disease? I don't see a point here.
The "primary purpose" of evolution and biology (if it makes sense to say there is a purpose to evolution or biology) is not reproduction - it is survival, and survival does not require the birth of every conception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If the purpose of human life is reproduction, what a woeful existence that would be for those unable to fulfill that purpose. Is there no purpose to be had in old age?
Besides, even in nature, a population with no checks on reproduction will reproduce itself to extinction. Assuming for the sake of argument there were an intrinsic purpose to life, reproduction is overly simplistic summary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There is no intrinsic purpose to being human, and if there were, reproduction ain't it as those who are incapable of reproduction will agree.so what is the primary purpose of humans then if not to reproduce?
Created:
Posted in:
Someone needs to explain "limited government" is not the same thing as limited by government....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This is an observation by Ann Coulter
It is a mistake to equate liberal and atheist. After all, there are conservative atheists and liberal theists. Regardless, bodily autonomy, equality, etc., should not be restricted to the gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Atheists are unrighteous because they don't know, and deny, the only one who is righteous.
Atheists are disliked (a.k.a. unrighteous) because they recognize unsubstantiated stories about "the only one who is righteous" as dubious evidence for existence of a godman. “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” George Orwell
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Atheists take themselves as being God,
Silence, mortal. ;-P
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
1) If atheists 'love their sin", why do we not see atheists acting distinctly worse than believers?
2)Are adherents of religions other than Christianity also 'loving their sin'?
Also, I think the cop/god comparison is interesting, but probably not for the reasons you intended. Comparing the role of god and the role of police officer suggests they are the same: human created functions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I agree.I don't agree with this "fight fire with fire" attitude. I don't think it helps anything, I think it makes it worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Mmmk. I guess you showed me.This is a drive-by because you run everytime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You can't say 'bodily autonomy is a right' and then give a list of exceptions to it. It is either a right for everyone all the time or it is not a right. Furthermore, if a person doesn't have property right on their own body, then all rights are meaningless. Simple as.Yet you don't follow this. I could ask you a few questions that would expose your irrationality. That is why you don't answer questions. You want to keep your illogical worldview, but pretend you operate by logic.YOU have an exception to virtually every right there is. Yes you. So your first two sentences are either lies, or the comments of a person who lives inconsistently to his worldview.I believe you know this, so you breeze in , make these absurd statements, and then dodge questions and fade out. Check past threads. That is your MO.For me, it's enough that you can't ( and better, won't) answer questions to your world view. So whether you run or dodge, with you, all we have to show is your unwillingness. That way, we leave the Gentle Reader with one nagging question.Why won't he answer???
As one of the gentle readers, I have several questions myself:
1) Are there a list of exceptions to Skep's first two statements?
I can think of one: Punishment. I'm certainly open to probing the integrity of my view though.
These I cannot answer:
2)It seems Ethan takes no exception to the third statement. If so, as a proponent of prolife, how does he square this statement while rejecting a woman's 'deed' to her body during pregnancy?
3)Why didn't Ethan just ask these questions rather than doing the drive-by he accused Skep of?!
4)Since Ethan is a judge on Skep's abortion debate, does this post suggest a fair and impartial decision is to be expected from him?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
@disgusted
Hey look a Straw Post.
Yea, it does seem a bit over the top, doesn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Right. So no measures should be taken?
I've not suggested no measures should be taken. What I want to know is what end your measures hope to achieve, is this goal a statistically significant problem, and is it worth the effort?
Is not 95% safety better than 40% safety even if 100% is impossible? Safety cannot be guaranteed but it can be improved.
A society willing to exchange their freedom for safety deserves neither, and this is what we as a society are doing more and more. I hope I never see the day when we are as safe as you would prefer.
So either Saudi Arabia needs to be added to your 'no immigrants' spiel...Please stop being silly. You asked and I answered.
Actually, you didn't answer:
So, places like Saudi Arabia (one of our allies) is unacceptable?Are you trying to be obtuse, or are you doing it by accident?
And I did not say "no immigrants", please don't lie
Of course, you didn't say that! You are more than willing to allow 100 immigrants of the world entry into the US. Its very generous of you! You're a regular immigrant advocate! 🤣
Perhaps you could calm yourself and try again with less vitriol.I am calm, notice that unlike you, I'm not lying. Disagreement with you is not vitriol. Address the argument, not the man.
Taking comments out of context and failing to explain your position (as the comment challenged) is total integrity and nothing but pertaining to the argument (that you didn't address), no doubt.
It looks like we've arrived at that part of the conversation where ideas are no longer discussed, so I bid you adieu.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
How can you be sure you're not importing criminals and terrorists if you're not willing to stop immigration altogether? The truth is you can't. Either this hasn't occurred to you, you aren't willing to accept it, or you're hiding your true position.Nonsense. We had immigration for decades without fear of terrorist incidents.How many times did a Japanese burst into a nightclub shooting people? How many times has a Dutchman attacked the police with a knife? How many Icelandic terrorists have rammed a car into a crowd?
Newsflash: we do these things to ourselves. You are picking and choosing facts that reinforce your preferences against "them" (as you perceive it) and ignoring that which makes them look just like us (as you perceive it).
And all of a sudden we can't be be sure we're not importing criminals and terrorists we stop immigration altogether? What changed?
In spite of propaganda to the contrary, there are no absolute measures. No matter what you do, you cannot guarantee safety.
I take it you realize your standard eliminates more than you thought.And so what? No immigrant has a right to enter America. So what if Abdul is denied entry? So what? My standard eliminates moron terrorists. How is that a disadvantage?
The aforementioned comment regarding a failed standard ( which you've taken out of context instead of admitting error) was "Ones where women are not cattle and body parts are not lopped off for blasphemy."
I say again - Saudi Arabia: they behead for blasphemy (and other crimes) and women are not extended all the same rights as men. So either Saudi Arabia needs to be added to your 'no immigrants' spiel, your standard should change, or you have double standands.
Merit based immigration and strict controls over areas of concern.That's probably the best we could hope for.And that is precisely what the liberals reject.
Relevance?
Created:
Posted in:
I'm tired of the games...its time for our government to be occupied by individuals who are not quite so fearful.This is the same mentality and tactic as the racist.I'm tired of the games...its time for our government to be occupied by individuals who are not quite so inferior.Both of you assume your conclusion in your premise.
That makes no sense, and your rant about liberals didn't explain it. Perhaps you could calm yourself and try again with less vitriol.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The reason I bring homeless up in particular is because it is a lot harder to het a job in that situation than I think a lot ofnpeople care to realize. Keeping hygiene up is one thing, but willl anyone even hire you if you don't have a home address? What if you are in a place where there aren't any jobs?I'm just saying, I don't think it is really as simple as you are making it out to be.
Having been homeless, i can tell you, you can get and maintain a job. Besides, let's be serious most people who are permanently homeless need something more than a job. Perhaps professional help. This is something different than what the OP is referencing though. Able-bodied, abled-minded people should not be receiving help from society.
There should be oversight on social programs. Ive been a recipient of the system, but it wasn't permanent. Welfare to able-bodied, abled minded persons should be temporary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Merit based immigration and strict controls over areas of concern.
That's probably the best we could hope for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What cultures are acceptable in your opinion, it is it more an opinion of what cultures are not acceptable?Ones where women are not cattle and body parts are not lopped off for blasphemy.So, places like Saudi Arabia (one of our allies) is unacceptable?Are you trying to be obtuse, or are you doing it by accident?
I take it you realize your standard eliminates more than you thought.
If we don't import any criminals, or terrorists into the country, they can't mow down our citizens. How is that difficult to comprehend?
How can you be sure you're not importing criminals and terrorists if you're not willing to stop immigration altogether? The truth is you can't. Either this hasn't occurred to you, you aren't willing to accept it, or you're hiding your true position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
CNN is now suing. I think they have a case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I love my country for many reasons, one being, it's the greatest.
Duly noted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I think you've not understood me correctly. By autonomy, I mean "Freedom from external control or influence; independence", and by aspirational, I mean something not realized. If abortion were disallowed, humans rights would be something merely desired by women.
I think parents play the role of a governing body until children are mature enough to fall under state jurisdiction. Just as the state can take away your rights for fucking up,
so can your parents! 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I don't see abortion being an issue. Those that do require human rights to be merely an aspiration to nearly half of the human population.
You can't say 'bodily autonomy is a right' and then give a list of exceptions to it. It is either a right for everyone all the time or it is not a right. Furthermore, if a person doesn't have property right on their own body, then all rights are meaningless. Simple as.
Created:
Posted in:
What does this have to do with this thread or anything I've said? It seems you're running off on a tangent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think we humans are very bad at estimating risks and dangers. Cows kill a lot more people than sharks do.The safest time to fly was probably right after 9-11 when security personel etc were super-motivated, but people waited, and thing went back to more or less just going throught the motions.I bet every one of us does something (smoke, drink, drive a car)that is far more likely to kill us that a mass shooter is.
You're absolutely correct, but the thing is, we dont need to estimate these risks.
Created:
Posted in:
What cultures are acceptable in your opinion, it is it more an opinion of what cultures are not acceptable?Ones where women are not cattle and body parts are not lopped off for blasphemy.
So, places like Saudi Arabia (one of our allies) is unacceptable?
What is an acceptable number from your view?100
Funny.
How would you like to screen them beyond what we already do?I would like to remove the terrorists before importing them.
That doesn't answer the question. I really want to know how you think that can be acheived.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I am for human rights from the moment of birth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I believe he is correct if we consider the connotatons of each. Nationalism is "my country is the greatest!", suggesting it can do no wrong; whereas Pariotism is "I love my country!", suggesting a willingness to work for it (and make it better).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It is very disturbing, D.
If dignity for people is not extended to all, then priviledge exists where we pretend human rights do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Can we not have immigration without importing people with cultures alien to western civilization?
What cultures are acceptable in your opinion, it is it more an opinion of what cultures are not acceptable?
Why do we have to import so many?
What is an acceptable number from your view?
Why should we not screen them?
How would you like to screen them beyond what we already do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The reason is that idiot liberals keep shipping in busloads of terrorists who then either kill citizens, radicalize them into terrorists, or anger them into extreme opposition.There is no reason to import 3rd world killers into the country, and certainly not in such numbers. The blood is squarely on the hands of the morons who think several hundred civilian deaths are worth the wonderfulness of having Aikmed molest our young women in America.
How do you see America avoiding these things? Closing the borders and isolating ourselves from the world?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
i've never seen the difference between not believing in gods and believing there are no gods. Is it possible to do one but not the other?
I've got a jar of jellybeans here, do you believe there is an even number of jellybeans? The answer "no" is not equivalent to believing there is an odd number of jellybeans.
It is the same with claims of god, if you don't believe the claims you do not suddenly believe the opposite.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I am concerned with the negative effects religious thinking can and does bring to society. Global warming mitigation, women's reproductive rights, education, medical breakthroughs etc., have all been hindered by religious thinking.
It makes sense to bring critical attention to what harms us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I am familiar with it, but I'm not convinced it is a problem. If it is, then I'm not convinced any view has a legitimate answer.I puzzle how you build morality on biology (what is) and get objective values (what ought to be). Are you aware of Hume's is to ought problem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
In that case, you are allowing your understanding of a particular subject to interfere with your understanding of logic. The laws of logic work the same regardless of the subject (provided it is not self-contradictory). - in response to this post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I think people have a right to control their own bodies to an extent,There are no part-time rights.So can I use my body as a deadly weapon to kill another person, or should I control the use of it?
I answered that question in our debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
On one side we have well-meaning individuals overly concerned by mass shooting (given the actual threat to society) and on the other side we have well meaning-individuals overly concerned about a wall for nothing more than a sense of protection (planes fly right over it).
Imagine what we could do if we spent all that time and energy addressing heart-disease (the #1 killer of Americans), diabetes, or depression.
Created: