Page 111 of 324 FirstFirst ... 1161101107108109110111112113114115121161211 ... LastLast
Results 1,651 to 1,665 of 4859
  1. #1651
    Guardian Empress of Earth Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    20,270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    While I think that the guy is going to face plant, anyone who can mount a run should be able to.
    Of course, just expecting the outcome to mirror that of what happened to Christie in many ways.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.
    DBM: Meagan/Cyanna/Dash/Mirror Mage

  2. #1652
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Of course, just expecting the outcome to mirror that of what happened to Christie in many ways.
    I get the feeling that Christie will wind up looking like Reagan compared to what this is going to look like.

  3. #1653
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    This is why I hate the abortion debate because you guys fundamentally will never agree on what it actually is. It's a waste of time. Everyone just keep fighting to advance your own causes, nobody will convince anybody.

  4. #1654
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    This is why I hate the abortion debate because you guys fundamentally will never agree on what it actually is. It's a waste of time. Everyone just keep fighting to advance your own causes, nobody will convince anybody.
    I mean, you either treat women like they're people or you don't.

  5. #1655
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    I mean, you either treat women like they're people or you don't.
    If you honestly 100% think that upon conception that it is a human that they are carrying, then you really don't have much leeway to say it's acceptable under anything less than life threatening conditions to kill it. If you don't believe that, then it becomes a viable choice.

    To a lot of these people the difference between an abortion and strangling a baby in it's crib is just time and nothing else.

  6. #1656
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    If you honestly 100% think that upon conception that it is a human that they are carrying, then you really don't have much leeway to say it's acceptable under anything less than life threatening conditions to kill it. If you don't believe that, then it becomes a viable choice.

    To a lot of these people the difference between an abortion and strangling a baby in it's crib is just time and nothing else.
    Sure, you can believe that. But what's the net effect of that belief? The net effect of that belief is treating women as nothing more than, as they say, an incubator for the fetus. It's not treating them like they're people. It's not allowing them control over their own bodies. It's valuating a theoretical baby higher than the body of women.

  7. #1657
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    If you honestly 100% think that upon conception that it is a human that they are carrying, then you really don't have much leeway to say it's acceptable under anything less than life threatening conditions to kill it. If you don't believe that, then it becomes a viable choice.

    To a lot of these people the difference between an abortion and strangling a baby in it's crib is just time and nothing else.
    One guy's take, the issue with that assertion is pretty simple.

    If that was their actual belief, they would push for every bun in the oven lost by a doctor coming with an involuntary manslaughter charge.

    Which no one is pushing for because it isn't actually what they believe.

  8. #1658
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    One guy's take, the issue with that assertion is pretty simple.

    If that was their actual belief, they would push for every bun in the oven lost by a doctor coming with an involuntary manslaughter charge.

    Which no one is pushing for because it isn't actually what they believe.
    But they'll happily investigate women who miscarry to see if it was 'actually' a miscarriage. This was somet hing that was done while women were laying in their bloodstained clothes in the pre-roe era.

  9. #1659
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Sure, you can believe that. But what's the net effect of that belief? The net effect of that belief is treating women as nothing more than, as they say, an incubator for the fetus. It's not treating them like they're people. It's not allowing them control over their own bodies. It's valuating a theoretical baby higher than the body of women.
    No it's not. If you truly believe that then you are simultaneously saying by any logical standard that 9 months of inconveniance for a woman overrides an entire possible lifetime for a child. In which case, yeah indefinitley ending a life is a far worse and a greater infringment than a 9 month delay. Assuming you actually believe that. Which I really don't. But if you actually do, then there is no compromise to be had. You can't logically make one that holds up to any scrutiny. The amount of value you place on the baby would be infinitley lower if you are ending it's life.

    It's an either or thing. Either you think it's a real living human and the only difference between a baby and a fetus is that one is the location and length of time it existed, or you think there's some point between conception and maturation where it definitley becomes a sentient human and it is acceptable to terminate at some point.

    That's why you won't convince Ohnooze. Because you both don't think it's the same thing. You think it's one thing and he thinks it's another. And based on where you fall between those beliefs will dictate the actual logical guidelines you can go by and the standards of morality you can use. You'll never convince him, he'll never convince you. Because you aren't arguing the same issue. You are arguing two seperate issues that share a similar situation that is dependent on belief of what that situation is.

  10. #1660
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    One guy's take, the issue with that assertion is pretty simple.

    If that was their actual belief, they would push for every bun in the oven lost by a doctor coming with an involuntary manslaughter charge.

    Which no one is pushing for because it isn't actually what they believe.
    Here's what I'll say, I think there's a lot of politicians that are scumbags and using this issue to gain favor with Christian people who do absolutely believe it. And I think that is where you will find the inconsistency. There are absolutely religious people that 100% believe that however, and would support negligent doctors being charged with manslaughter if it was on the table.

  11. #1661
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    No it's not. If you truly believe that then you are simultaneously saying by any logical standard that 9 months of inconveniance for a woman overrides an entire possible lifetime for a child. In which case, yeah indefinitley ending a life is a far worse and a greater infringment than a 9 month delay. Assuming you actually believe that. Which I really don't. But if you actually do, then there is no compromise to be had. You can't logically make one that holds up to any scrutiny. The amount of value you place on the baby would be infinitley lower if you are ending it's life.

    It's an either or thing. Either you think it's a real living human and the only difference between a baby and a fetus is that one is the location and length of time it existed, or you think there's some point between conception and maturation where it definitley becomes a sentient human and it is acceptable to terminate at some point.

    That's why you won't convince Ohnooze. Because you both don't think it's the same thing. You think it's one thing and he thinks it's another. And based on where you fall between those beliefs will dictate the actual logical guidelines you can go by and the standards of morality you can use. You'll never convince him, he'll never convince you. Because you aren't arguing the same issue. You are arguing two seperate issues that share a similar situation that is dependent on belief of what that situation is.
    I'm not contesting that Ohnooze believes that a 10 week old fetus and a born, nine month old baby are the same thing in terms of human life. That's silly so far as science is concerned, obvioiusly, but he clearly believes that.

    I'm, instead, pointing out the net effect of that belief. Either women have liberty or they don't. Either you treat them as a person or you don't. They're either living and capable of making their own decisions or they're incubators for the fetus' life that takes precedent over their own. That's the net effect of that belief, regardless of how sincerely he believes something.

  12. #1662
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Here's what I'll say, I think there's a lot of politicians that are scumbags and using this issue to gain favor with Christian people who do absolutely believe it. And I think that is where you will find the inconsistency. There are absolutely religious people that 100% believe that however, and would support negligent doctors being charged with manslaughter if it was on the table.
    If you can show me ten groups of them outside of such a doctor's office protesting that said doctor was not charged, I'd be willing to allow for such a possibility.

    As it stands, I haven't really seen such a protest being a regular(actually, even remotely real) thing.

  13. #1663
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    I'm not contesting that Ohnooze believes that a 10 week old fetus and a born, nine month old baby are the same thing in terms of human life. That's silly so far as science is concerned, obvioiusly, but he clearly believes that.

    I'm, instead, pointing out the net effect of that belief. Either women have liberty or they don't. Either you treat them as a person or you don't. They're either living and capable of making their own decisions or they're incubators for the fetus' life that takes precedent over their own. That's the net effect of that belief, regardless of how sincerely he believes something.
    Your opinion of the net effect of that belief is something that logically doesn't hold up imo. There's no barometer where you are going to place an inconveniance of 9 months, NO MATTER how severe that inconveniance is, with permenantly ending something you believe is human life. Because logically you could extrapolate that off to after the baby is born and say, well the mother shouldn't have to pay for, hold, change or breast feed the baby, so she could kill it.

    You're never going to reach a point where permanent death is acceptable next to a delayed autonomy of personhood for a period of time.

    Once you establish that it is a human life, ending it will always become the more egregious offense in comparison to anything else, and anything else becomes lesser than that. Which is why even most of these people will concede that they would be okay with terminating a pregancy if it was the mother's life at risk. Because then it becomes a one life to one life comparison.

  14. #1664
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    If you can show me ten groups of them outside of such a doctor's office protesting that said doctor was not charged, I'd be willing to allow for such a possibility.

    As it stands, I haven't really seen such a protest being a regular(actually, even remotely real) thing.
    You'd have to find examples where the death of the child was clear negligence to make that case. You can't count unavoidable miscarriages. And in those cases, I'd be shocked if there weren't malpractice suits over that.

  15. #1665
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    563

    Default

    How is it that everyone on the conservative side in these threads ends up becoming the very boogeyman they claim are made up by the left? Like I have followed this since before the 2016 election and I can't think of a single instance of a conservative coming in here to debate you guys about misconceptions of the right that didn't end up backing those very things when push came to shove. It's surreal...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •