YouFound_Lxam

Why is cutting regulations good?  That lead to the Palestine Ohio incident?  I think it should be easier to build buildings so they are more affordable for people, but anyone who advocates cutting regulations needs to be specific.

I'm anti war, but Trump didn't end any wars.  He continued our presence in the middle east.

Many on the right want to prosecute gay people as well.  Trump can denounce the people in his base that are anti gay if he was principled about the issue.

MS 13 members that sell fetaynyl deserve death; the undocumented caught in the cross hairs should not have their victimless liberties treaded upon.  Trump did neither of these things.

Biden did this.

Biden did this too, but inflation should be lower under Biden, then my stocks can do better.

Why would that be an excuse? One presumes that one makes excuses to escape accountability. But a female is not accountable to anyone when deciding to have sex. You're arguing that she is. And I'm asking you to justify that, without presuming that she already is.

This isn't apropos. Murder is wrong because one is initiating and acting out in aggression, infracting on another's right to oneself. When a pregnant woman carries out an abortion, she merely maintains the right to herself--her unborn child's surviving or not notwithstanding. It's not the same at all.

All of this can be mitigated with a legal abortion.

Since you're arguing that she should be obligated, you have to justify the obligation--especially since it excludes her interests over her body.

 You may argue the unborn child is an innocent human life, and I won't dispute that, but why should that matter to her, much less justify the coercive submission of her body?

 Explain the reason her knowing the consequences eliminates her authority over the use of her body.

Why does her being raped or a participant in incest allows for her autonomy, but her consenting to a non-incestuous relationship disallows it?

No, it most certainly is not. Being an adult does not mean putting your own interests aside. I don't intend to get in argument over the abstractness of "adulthood" given that individuals can choose to express themselves however they see fit at whatever age. But nothing during one's period necessitates to "put one's own interests aside."

Exactly. So why does the mother OWE the child? 

she in part is responsible for the creation of its life.

She provides the labor that goes into birthing it.

 If anything, the child owes her.

 The womb does not belong to the child; the mother gifts it, not submits it because she's indebted.

We don't get to vote on it. The politicians in government, which is what the government is, are passing these laws restricting abortion. That's called... The government deciding.

There is hardly a single state anywhere in the country where a referendum would result in abortion being banned. Even Kentucky supported a women's right to choose overwhelmingly.

No, I meant what I said. Is capitol punishment, as in execution by the state... according to your definition... murder? It's a very simple question.

If no, why not?

If the prognosis on the man is that he will never wake up, then he is regarded as a vegetable and his life can be legally ended at any time.

A man in a coma has all of the qualities I listed. The difference is that those qualities are laying dormant, it's no different than when we're asleep.

And let's not forget the biggest difference here...  the man in a coma is not relying on anyone else's body to remain alive.

Because women are overwhelmingly pro choice. The only reason there is any serious discussion in this country over whether abortion should be legal is because of men.

No, you're making it out to be a big deal, because you are imposing on others that they must carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

There is nothing else about sex that is a big deal in any way that is not entirely subjective, hence why this whole conversation about responsibility is circular.

Cell specialization; zygotes, embryos, and cancer cells all have human DNA but aren’t specialized, so they aren’t human.  A fetus does have its cells mostly specialized, so they are human.

If you have the ability to save someone’s life and you don’t, you’re letting them die.  I have the ability to send all my money to Africa to help children and to prevent them from dying of starvation.  But I don’t.

I just strongly disagree with that; I would kill one person to save 4 if I valued all people equally.  90% of the population agrees with me.

Mr. Beast did this poll where he asked people, “Would you press a button that killed someone and you got $1 million for it?”  45% of the population said they would.  Now my position is, “I would do it for $1 billion, but then use some of the money to save more people from more painful deaths, leading to more lives saved than killed and I still have a lot of money.”  Nothing that lasts a finite amount of time has infinite value, including the human life.

You can make the living conditions as horrible as you want in prison, if 1/6 people are in jail, it’s going to be extremely expensive to take care of them all.

I don’t believe I said that.  I believe that we should kill the very bad prisoners (murderers, rapists, kidnappers, people that bring fetanyl in the country), and impose alternative sentences for lesser crimes (so if your crime is a DUI for example, you get lashings).

They put themselves in that situation because of men like you having sex with them.  If you don’t want a pregnancy, don’t have sex.

Your propose virtual rape of pregnant woman. Your sick-n-head.

Keep your frickin nose out of a pregnant womans bodily business you pervert.

Fetus/baby is not a viable,  independent, individual human until it is born out, taken its first in-spirit-ed breath, and has the umbilical cord severed.

This dude appears to me, to be likened to religious medival days past and various countrys, that did and still do all kinds of other sick-n-heads  things  to women that should be considered criminal. 

These types morality is sick-head baseless religious morality that considers only the non-breathing, attached inside the woman, for months. Adult humans  move into an out of apartments in shorter times than that.

This is literally what it means to say the government gets to decide.

Is capitol punishment murder? Yes or No?

It's a collection of a number of qualities that separate us from plants. The ability to think, feel emotions, create and hold memories, form relationships, develop habits/routines, have desires, create goals for oneself, etc.

If you want to claim a fetus should be regarded as a fully formed human being with all of the same rights you need to provide an argument. You don't get to define your position as the correct one.

Yes, we the people getting to decide what happens inside the women's uterus.

Somehow I suspect you would feel differently if you were a women watching two men argue over what they get to do with their own body.

So you do not promote having children out of wedlock and you do not support having sex without the intent to conceive.

The consequences you are imposing on them.

Your argument here is entirely circular. The consequences of women engaging in sex is justifiably dire because women should know better, women should know better because the consequences are dire.

That’s EXACTLY what an intellectual coward would say. 

And I don’t give a flying rat’s ass what you think, feel or believe. The discussions of abortion ARE NEVER over. 

Why would they have an excuse? To whom are they beholden that exercising a choice even at their own convenience is characterized as an "excuse"?

Why would it be a stupid decision?

 If the female party gets pregnant, and decides not to carry her pregnancy to term, she is not obligated.

If the point you're implying is that it's a stupid decision because she should always keep in mind that having sex can result in pregnancy, thereby subjecting her to an alleged duty to her unborn child while dismissing her own interest... well that's the point we're disputing. 

 You would have to justify the reason she owes a zygote/embryo/fetus anything.

No. The woman makes the decision to expel it from her womb. It dies because its physiological underdevelopment makes it inviable outside of its mother's womb. Is the mother culpable for the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's incapacity to survive outside her womb before her pregnancy reaches its term?

No. She can give it up for adoption, or abandon it with impunity.

For whatever reason she decides to get an abortion, she's exercising her right to behave her body as she sees fit, which includes denying a zygote/embryo/fetus the use of her womb.

The possibility of pregnancy does not depend on consent, so consent is irrelevant. You're implying that she's entered an implicit contract with nature.

Kicking someone out of the country is a subset of prosecution.

Your stance on immigration would probably change.  Mine would stay the same, because I don’t look at issues through a partisan lens.

But I digress.  If I visit Saudi Arabia, speed 10 mph above the speed limit, I broke the law and I’m not a citizen of their country.  But I don’t get sent back to America over it.

Well, we both agree that the system needs to be changed to be more libertarian (me more so than you).  What requirements would you impose upon the immigrants to let them stay here without fear of deportation?

Fair point.  So would your only requirement to immigrate be that you can’t have fetanyl on you when you come in? 

FCE makes sure you don’t have fetanyl and once that is the case, you’re free to move here? 

 To keep sex traffickers out, you ask the kids privately if these are your parents.  If the kid says “Yes; they are”, then there is no child rape happening so they can enter and if the kid says, “No they are not”, then the parents get killed for sex trafficking children across (why else would the kid say no to that question?)

Yea; if I was in charge, I’d be operating differently.  But DART is for normative analysis, not positive analysis.

FCE would get funding to fight the fetanyl coming into the country (and the funding would be bipartisan since nobody but cartels want fetanyl coming in).  Take it out of ICE’s budget.

Because it’s what the scientists believe.  If this was not the case, IVF wouldn’t exist because of all the embryos you have to kill to get it to happen.

What’s the difference between killing a human being and not taking care of them, leading to their death?  Killing vs letting die.  It’s possible, but just possible that killing is worse than letting die.

 If killing is worse than letting die, then it would mean that with the trolley problem (look it up if you don’t know what it means), if there are 100 people on one track, 101 people on the other one, the train is heading towards the track with 101 people, you pulling the switch and killing 100 people to save 101 would be immoral (and should be illegal) because in this situation, killing and letting die are equivalent.

Because of this, I’m not sure if killing is worse than letting die.

But consider the following scanareao: If there was a button that if you pressed it, you would get $1 billion and a child dies because you press that button, would you press it?  If the answer is no, then you have $1 billion less.  If the answer is yes, you can take that $1 billion, fly to Africa with it, adopt the 10 poorest orphans you find and saving them from starvation, and still have hundreds of millions of dollars left over.  If you still think killing 1 kid by pressing that button for the money that you can use to save 10 different kids is bad, I don’t understand that rationale.  I just don’t.

I don’t approve of incarceration for crimes because tax dollars are going to take care of bad people.  We treat our murderers better than our homeless people because the murderers get their living expenses paid for by the state.

The abortionists and the female don’t care about if it’s a baby.  They want the baby killed because of the maternal pain that it caused the female.  That’s why pro choicers claim men can’t have an opinion on abortion (which I think is an anti free speech claim). 

Most pro choicers (not myself, but most pro choicers) care more about maternal pain than the fetus’s life.  I just don’t believe a zygote or an embryo is a human being.

It doesn’t matter; you broke the law (the reason you want to kick out the undocumented).

Protect it from what?  Pablo the undocumented immigrant’s taco stand?  FCE protects the country from fetanyl.  You c an replace ICE with FCE and still effectively protect the country from the fetanyl crisis.

What specific requirements would you impose to come legally?  I can’t think of any that merit deportation for a violation.  Lack of English knowledge can be solved with google translate (although I believe America should teach only English to those that come here).

The constitution didn’t mention the word “American” because this was written during a time of open borders.  America went from a British colony to a superpower because of practically open borders.

We already protect many countries around the world and democrat and republican politicians  have supported it.  Trump may be against America getting involved with Ukraine due to costs, but he didn’t have this vigor with South Korea.

Is your solution to deport the child to a country where they will be raped?  I think the way to reduce child trafficking in the US is the following policy prescription:

1) Anyone who uses or sells a child for sex gets their head cut off.  Child rape should be punished with death.

) Let the parents come with their kid to the US so they can get a good job, keep their kids, not sell their kids to pedos, and reduce child rape coming into the country

You’re safer with the vaccine than without it, but not 100% safer.  I’m very anti mandate, but I’m also very pro vaccination.

These heart attacks are less common than death from COVID that got reduced despite society being maskless now because of the vaccine, although I think you should be allowed to sue a vaccine brand if their product causes you to die or endure significant pain.

Cartels aren’t going to go to a place that will kill them for selling fentanyl.  I think the federal penalty for selling fentanyl should be death.

This is question begging. We're talking about what the law should be.

Again, your position is that the government gets to decide, so bear in mind that everything you type from  this point on is to affirm why you believe that.

Murder by definition involves malice. That's not what were talking about.

We're talking about whether a women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. In order to argue that a women should not have this right you seem to be arguing that a fetus is a person or at least should be regarded as one. But a fetus, particularly in it's earliest stages does not hold any of the characteristics we associate with personhood, so you have no basis to argue this except for telling us how you feel about it. 

Everyone will feel differently about this question, that is again, why it should be up to the women and not the government.

Who's you? Because last time I checked it takes two to create a baby, yet it's the women's body only that will have to be subjected to the consequences.

Regardless, we are again at the point where you are asserting that the women's "screw up" is a valid reason to deny her a right to her own body. And you justify this right by asserting that a fetus is a person, which it's not.

That's what this debate really comes down to, we can argue about the rest all day long but in the end that will be pointless. Because you see a fetus as a person, you believe having sex is a punishable act. It's really that simple.

Let’s say an embryo is a human being.  If this is the case, then IVF wouldn’t exist without the government putting an end to it already because of all the embryos that have to die to produce one healthy pregnancy.

Now granted, out of the 4 states that banned IVF, 3 of them voted for Joe Biden.  But their concern is maternal safety, not dead embryos.

 Texas banned killing zygotes in the womb, but legalized killing embryos in the lab.  I don’t understand this. 

Abortion is a big voting issue for many Republicans.  IVF is less of an issue, even though it makes more sense to legalize abortion than IVF (less maternal pain).  But if IVF gets to be legal, so does abortion.

Socialists agree with you 100%.  But if this was the case, it justifies me forcing you to adopt someone and spend all that money to save their life.

But this will lead to abortionists deciding not to perform abortions anymore, which means the female that wants the abortion will do it herself.  So whatever punishment you impose for the doctor you would have to do for women if it is to be banned.

Not accurate; the slogan is “my body my choice”, not, “We don’t believe a zygote is a human being.”  They are totally fine with killing the unborn if they are connected to them and causing them pain.

By being inseminated and then fertilized. There's also in-vitro fertilization.

She may or may not know of the consequences. Furthermore, having protected sex does not guarantee her not getting pregnant. '

Having protected or unprotected sex is not necessarily a stupid decision. Of course one would assume one is trying one's best to mitigate against the contraction of STI's and the conception of unwanted pregnancies.

Why does the zygote/embryo/fetus die? It's very important to understand the distinction. Does it die because the mother initiated harm, or does it die because its physiological underdevelopment disallows it from surviving outside of its mother's womb?

Once we understand this distinction, the question goes beyond, "who kills whom?" and focuses on the capacity to behave the womb to the exclusion of all other interests.

When a pregnant woman is coerced into carrying a pregnancy to term, you are excluding her interests despite the fact that it's her womb.

It's her womb, so she can exercise decisions at her own convenience when it concerns said womb.

In other words, it's up to you to justify the reason a zygote/embryo/fetus has a claim to its mother's womb which supersede and excludes its mother's interests.

So your response is to detain her for the rest of her life because she behaved her body as she saw fit.

And who's the beneficiary of this resolved dispute?

First of all, using protection is not a guarantee of anything. Condoms break, and birth control is not always effective.

There is only one 100% effective prevantative and that's abstenance. 

The problem with your argument here is that it is predacated on the idea that a women somehow deserves to be forced into carrying the child because she had the audacity to have sex, but the drive to have sex is literally programmed into all of us so your solution of abstenance fundamentally goes against human nature.

And then you have rape and incest.

not to mention psychological manipulation which makes many women feel forced into things they would rather not do.

Plus the fact that it's the man who has complete and total control over what happens, yet it's the women who has to bear the consequences of "mistiming".

So the bottom line here is that there are a lot of factors involved, all of which are extemely personal so it's not the government's business. At the end of the day it's the women's body we are arguing over, so it's the women, not the government who should decide.

Basically, it is the right of the fetus to life versus forcing a woman to carry a child against her will.

 Firstly does the fetus have a right to life? I would say that rights only exist in law. So if the law decrees that a fetus has a right to life then it does, but if the law decrees that it has no right to life then it doesn’t. The right to life in law is simply a requirement used so that society can function.

 So if it is down to empathy, then who does one empathise with, is it the fetus or is it the woman forced to carry a child against her will? To me there seems to be no right or wrong on this and it is down to sentiment and opinion.

Then you are missing the entire point. The pro choice stance is not that killing a fetus is moral, no serious person would claim that. There is no controversy around this as is evidenced by the fact that you can be charged for double homicide by killing a pregnant women which is nearly unanimously agreed upon within our society.

The pro choice position recognizes that there are two fundamental rights in direct conflict here, so the only question is which right wins out. As in any other case where this happens, when one right intrudes upon another the intruding right loses.

I am not claiming it, it is just a fact. Nothing I've stated is factually inaccurate. All of which is common knowledge, readily available and easily verifiable. 

Your inability to comprehend that which you read is your problem, not mine. 

I have pointed out your reading comprehension and education problems since day one you arrived at DART getting into your first debate/discussion on abortion. And like then as is now, I've consistently discredited everything you've put forth. Piss poor analogies. Piss poor reading comprehension of what I (and others) have said. 

Have a swell day, intellectual coward denialist that you so clearly are. 

I don’t believe a zygote or embryo is a human being.  But I think a fetus is a human being.

Here is the compromise try at I support: National abortion ban at 12 weeks.  Every state must legalize abortion for rape victims up until 12 weeks (because abortion at that point is self defense; if I got raped, I’m not paying child support) and for maternal life up until the moment of birth (because I think maternal life outweighs fetal life for these rare cases).

Any woman that gets a late term abortion (24 weeks or more) when their life or health did not require it and if there was no fetal defect should be put to death; that’s murder, and the penalty for murder should be death.  Since this is very few people, it’s pragmatic to implement this.  The fetus endured pain from that abortion (and it was a lot of pain), and since they had plenty of time to abort beforehand, the proper penalty is the same as stabbing an infant; the death penalty; especially when you can do a c section and be fine; late term abortions of healthy babies without the mother dying without an abortion should be punished with death.

I did prevail, you’re just don’t see it due to your lack of reading comprehension skills, educational level and life experience. It’s okay, one day you’ll see the error of your ways. Just not today, unfortunately. 

A box of rocks has more intelligence than you, kid. 

I mean really, for fucks sake, your retort screams “ignoramus” yo the heavens. Please go to a private university and get some life experience before engaging me (or anyone else for that matter) on the topic of abortion.

Take a course in philosophy and extended English courses. You need to learn how to correctly identify, understand let alone use analogies.

Moreover, how to properly compare two like things in making arguments vs two unlike things as you consistently do with your false equivalency fallacies.

Plus learning how and why words have different meanings when used in different contexts.

Until then, don’t expect anymore replies from me to you on the topic of abortion. I simply don’t have the time let alone patience to deal with your ignorance (on all the levels aforementioned) anymore. 

Yes, in Genesis 2:7 god creates woman from the man's rib.

But then, in other verses it puts it a different way:

GEN 1:27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

GEN 5:2, Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Looks to me like there are two different versions of the creation of human beings.

Machines do not have bodily autonomy.

Nowhere in that italicized definition does it categorically state that the zygote is [a] human being, which is what he asked for. Nor within that definition does it equally categorically state that the zygote is [a] human life (which = [a] human being) either. {[a] human life is synonymous with [a] human being}

Your ignorance is showing with this piss poor analogy that is a false equivalency to a pregnant girl/woman. 

Sperm meet the same basics criteria for life as a zygote does. Sperm from a human is human in origin. Does that make sperm a human life? According to your (il)logic, it does. 

I explained why within my response. Cherry picking agian?

Moral authority - the quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct. 

Moral argument - is an argument with a conclusion that expresses a moral claim. 

Types of moral claims - here

Actually, the law does have moral authority over so-called moral arguments.  Epic fail there on your part. 

A pregnancy is NOT [a] baby. And I do not care what the dictionary says, as it can be manipulated to say whatever floats your boat, just like the definition of woman being changed to float the boats of trans-activists. Dictionaries are not credible anymore, no more than MSM can ever be considered credible anymore, either. 

Also, you're missing the reality of context. Words have meaning, and their meaning is dictated by the context in which they are used.

In the context of the abortion topic:

A zygote =/= [a] baby

A blastocyst =/= [a] baby

An embryo =/= [a] baby

An unviable fetus =/= [a] baby

Since you suck at proper analogies, here is a proper use of an analogy to compare things that =/= along the lines of potentiality =/= actuality (never has, never will):

An acorn =/= an oak tree

An apple seed =/= an apple tree

A chunk of coal =/= [a] diamond

A log of wood =/= charcoal

A tadpole =/= [a] frog 

A framed property =/= [a] house

A zygote of human origin =/= [a] human being or [a] baby

No one ever called or identified a zygote as a young human life, or young human being. Or young anything. No one, ever. 

Yes, that phrase does imply [a] "young human life," which includes an 8-year old little girl. Are you denying she is young and [a] human life"? Clearly you are: "The phrase isn't implying an 8-year-old little girl. "

Abortion is not defined as "the killing of a young human life," not anywhere you will ever find it in those exact quoted words. Nowhere. 

An abortion terminates a pregnancy. A pregnancy is a developmental process. It's the process being terminated. The process cannot be killed. 

Then you are nothing less than a contradictory cretin. The bible clear states multiple times that  humans have had PHYSICAL interactions with god.

Then you are nothing less than a contradictory cretin. The bible clear states multiple times that  humans have had PHYSICAL interactions with god.

You CANNOT compare a pregnancy for any reason to a person already born.

The latter has all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the law whereas the former does not.

And you need to stop using misnomers in your arguments. A fetus, viable or not, is NOT [a] "baby." 

Yeah, it is. Chalked full of misnomers. 

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

A pregnancy is not defined by the term "young" at any gestational development.

A pregnancy is not a "young human life." This phrase implicitly implying this, by definition. 

If you answer no to this question, I wouldn’t want my taxes raised to pay for him being on a machine.  Life support costs like $10,000 a day.  I’m not paying that with insurance hikes.

Do you have any peer reviewed evidence that confirms a zygote is a human being?  If a zygote was a human being, then scientists wouldn’t do IVF because of all the embryos that have to die for it.  

Your sperm cells have the potential to be a human life.  You’re not treated as a human being until you are in fact a human being.  Just like I’m not going to treat a college student as a college grad until they actually become one.

So did Moses Physically speak with god face to face? Yes or No?

Did Jacob Physically wrestle with god. Yes or No?

Did Adam and Eve Physically speak with God?

Who's voice did John hear after he had baptised Jesus?

So are you okay with the government kicking you out of the country for speeding?  After all, you broke the law.  You can still drive, just drive legally and below the speed limit.

It depends on the crime that made them criminals.  If it’s murder or rape, Mexico would tell us, “You have some of our murderers” (just like what we would do if American murderers fled to Canada).  Then you can send them back and I don’t think it violates open borders anymore than someone committing a murder in Nevada, fleeing the state to avoid prosecution, and then the murderer getting deported back to Nevada. 

Everyone in the United States provided they didn’t harm anyone else has the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That’s why the constitution says, “we the people” and not, “we the citizens”.  We the people are pissed

Speeding is a biggger threat than the undocumented; 30,000 people die per year from speeding; less than 300 people die per year from the undocumented.  Being undocumented should be less prosecuted than speeding.

If you’re a child in the backseat, it’s not consensual.  A child is way more likely to die in a car accident than they are to get murdered by someone that’s undocumented.

The government didn’t make that argument.

I’m okay with letting every county decide their own undocumented policy.  It’s best to let local solutions work.  What works for rural Texas doesn’t have to work for NYC or Fairfield county.  Let every county decide its own undocumented policy and the undocumented can move to a county where they are accepted.

I don’t think any scientists have actually predicted the end of the world and I just checked your previous post.

Why aren’t the banks freaking out.

Because climate change is outside their field of expertise.

 

Because banks are notoriously short-termist and they see the negative effects of climate change as being a distant future prospect that can be ignored.

Perhaps some of them are stupid and they refuse to accept all the scientific evidence.

 However, The World Bank seems to accept the reality of climate change.

www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/overview

As far as I am aware they have said nothing of the sort. Most climate models have been remarkably accurate in their predictions even those dating back to the 1970s, but climate deniers only like to focus on the few that haven’t and then spread the myth that they don’t work.

You are a MASSIVE hypocrite. One minute you insist that "the BIBLE should be taken literally at all times". And now deny what THE BIBLE actually says   completely