Total posts: 1,320
-->
@secularmerlin
Are we discussing kids or fetuses? Please decide on your prefered topic.
Are we discussing babies, or kids? That is a loaded question. Analogously, detachment from the placenta is not a transformative event that makes one human.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Then you should quote it because you stated anyone should be able to shoot pregnant women at any time but can't because they have special rights.Well, anyone should be able to shoot them (with intent to kill) for any reason already, so it is logical that having been pregnant would give people extra rights, or it would be redundant. I just took a wild guess
This is an extension from the previous context of infanticide. Them, is not referring to adults. I'm wondering what extra right having been pregnant would bring.
This conversation chain stems from post #44, which secularmerlin concurred was "well stated"
Created:
My phone is having trouble posting today, and also double posting.
I have not deleted any material I have posted to this thread, or at least not intentionally. I've deleted some redundant posts.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I also have not said that we do not have a right to privacy, that is currently held to shield our medical decisions.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Where do you think I have said that it's okay to shoot pregnant women, and because they have less rights? Explain yourself please.
Bear in mind that I'm entertaining a previous statement of yours
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well, anyone should be able to shoot them (with intent to kill) for any reason already, so it is logical that having been pregnant would give people extra rights, or it would be redundant. I just took a wild guess.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Do you need her consent if you've been pregnant before?
How does that factor in?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You should still be able to shoot them with her consent of course.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Are you a doctor? If you are a doctor, you should be able to crush an infant's head with the consent of the mother for any reason.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Are you a doctor?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Honestly, how many people do you know that think we have a right to kill people for any reason?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
"family planning" is different from lawful personal defense.
Lethal force is exercised with intent to kill, disproportionately, and without a reasonable fear of severe bodily harm
Created:
-->
@Alec
Like most people, I was raised by a tyrannical mother. Somehow I survived though.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Pending the care facility, the majority could survive at 24 weeks today according to the estimates I have read, which is why I specified the extremely early 24 weeks. I don't have any experience to offer on one pound babies with underdeveloped lungs and don't intend to suggest any political point in that. The earlier a baby is in development the more critical their care to reduce the chances of life altering complications.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Disgusted:Finally you've said something right, fetuses can't survive outside a womb.
Humans survive outside a womb.
There is only one human involved in the abortion debate and that is the pregnant woman.
fetuses can survive outside the whom at 24 weeks, the youngest documented survivors to my knowledge being around 21 weeks
Created:
-->
@disgusted
fetuses can survive outside the whom at 24 weeks, the youngest documented survivors to my knowledge being around 21 weeks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Improving quality of life is not what scientists do. Scientists conduct experiments and contribute to knowledge in theory.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Why do you advocate the death penalty for people convicted of murder?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
False accusations are already prevalent enough without a one million dollar prize
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Yeah, obviously its not the same to seduce someone as it is to intoxicate them. It would be inappropriate to treat statutory rape as a violent crime. I was pointing out that only "17" should matter really in determining whether a crime has been committed, not whether one of the parties is a legal adult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
My joke is obviously extreme, but if they know the rape victim, it makes some sense that they should have to learn their lesson before being allowed in the same jurisdiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
"statutory rape" in the form that you mention doesn't make any sense. That is only the age of the party that can't consent should matter. If they can't consent, whomever has unmarried intercourse with a minor should be charged with a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Tell them to send back payments, or else they can be put to work stateside.
Created:
My birthgun is a Beretta Bobcat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
After a little private time with the inmates, sentence them to Mexico :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I don't mean the average, but the salary of the Average citizen. Either way they can be paid both for their term, and one term after their service, with excellent retirement benefits.
Created:
-->
@mustardness
To be honest, it is really only you who is advocating someone to stick their nose in a woman's business in this context.
Alabama is suggesting the opposite, that people claiming to be medical doctors should go directly to jail for doing so.
Created:
-->
@WyseGui
I feel that by basing the decision on the perp over what is best for the child or morally upright, the victim has to allow the rapist control over themselves. It can be recovered from, but it is defeat in that moment.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Shooting at someone based on guilt would probably be attempted murder, if not worse.
Created:
-->
@YeshuaRedeemed
Yep, they went there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think that's a distinction without a difference.
There is a distinct difference between saying "I am without God" and "I do not know of God" and "...…."
This should be obvious I think, but it can be obscured by the false notion that a state of ignorance is a belief, or a system of thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
If I told you I could jump from here to the moon, would your lack of belief be a 'system of thought'?
My system of thought in this instance, is relative what you are claiming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Atheism is literallly defined in its relation to God.No, it is not. It is defined as the lack of belief in ANY gods. Not capital g god.
Lack of belief is not a belief or system of thought.
Think of Atheism as a belief, or a system of thought
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I guess we have a fundamentally different view, I don't understand what you mean or how the OP intimates that somehow traditional marriage requires protection from the government, there is literally nothing threatening it.
The OP references a "religious freedom" bill that specifically formalizes marriage. I clearly did not state that a union of any sort needs protection from the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, in the OP, people who observe traditional marriage might be called a protected group.And they should be served with respect by any business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
I think people should be respectful while conducting private business as well.
According to the Civil Rights Act, Americans are "protected" from certain types of discrimination based on characteristics. The protected group is "American".Ok?
Is this difficult for you to grasp? You literally asked for a distinction. This is part of the distinction.
Actually, if everyone is protected who currently resides in the jurisdiction of the United States, there are no protected classes.Everyone has a "race" everyone has an "age" everyone has a "sex" and most people have some sort of "creed".You can still discriminate based on OTHER qualifications (no shirt, no shoes).If the law protects everyone from hate and exclusion (based on their raceagesexcreed), then only the hateful and prejudiced will be punished by the law.
Whether that is the case or not, your judgement of character is not the basis for civil rights law. The Civil Rights Act is not justified by hate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
If you look at the religious freedom bill, it formalizes marriage. Its not that we have a different view.I guess we have a fundamentally different view, I don't understand what you mean or how the OP intimates that somehow traditional marriage requires protection from the government, there is literally nothing threatening it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The government, apparantlyWhat exactly does someone who observes traditional marriage need protection FROM?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"A protected group or protected class is a group of people qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority."
So, in the OP, people who observe traditional marriage might be called a protected group.
According to the Civil Rights Act, Americans are "protected" from certain types of discrimination based on characteristics. The protected group is "American". Actually, if everyone is protected who currently resides in the jurisdiction of the United States, there are no protected classes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How exactly did you arrive at a complex which involves "protected classes"?
In civil rights law, thank goodness, there are "types of discrimination".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh yeah, that would be awful. Lets say everyone is a member of the protected class "sex", so discrimination could be absolutely forbidden since everyone who has a sex is completely protected from discrimination. Such a law would be totalitarian, and essentially turn the private sector into a diverse assortment of public utilities. I hate to think what else the people behind it have in store.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think of national law as saying "everybody play nice". That is not where such sentiment comes from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not interested in effecting law.It is better to love from the heart rather than simply go through the motions of love because you might get in trouble if you don't.That is what we teach. We are not a legalistic faith. We hold free will in reverence. Jesus Christ is the lover of all mankind, even dying for those who crucified him(remember, he gave his life, it was not taken). That all being the case, God honors those who out of their own free will choose good, not those who are coerced into doing externally good works.So if the law says "everybody play nice" you have no objections?
The law should respect human dignity, but it should not be thought to dignify us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Let me guess.You "hate the sin and love the sinner"?Well, I "hate the hate and love the hater who stops hating".
I have heard but don't relate well to that phrase. The person I have heard it from happened to run a religiously oriented business and employed someone open to unusual sexuality who was struggling with depression, and kept supporting them through everything they needed to do, at personal cost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no way to guarantee that people will act like adults.
That's the problem of our times and that's the beauty of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You know that is not how it works.So what part of your magic textbook says you can't bake a gay wedding cake?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
There are still segregated churches to, where one community by and large attends one service, and another community attends a separate one.
Created: