The main issue with Christianity

[Litmus]

Probably for the same reason you support the Neo-Nazis.

you thing is a lie. mine isn't.

 

[BidenPresident]

It must suck to be obligated to support killing living humans who have committed no crime. When Iraqis throw gay men off the roofs of very tall buildings for no reason other than their sexuality, you are required to celebrate. Maybe you actually do get a thrill out of it, being the shitty humanity-hating leftist that you are. You don't need any special reason to HATE.

Just kill living humans and golf clap. You leftists are such wonderful people.

I suspect you are mentally ill.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

you thing is a lie. mine isn't.

Sure, sure. Maybe if you could prove your claim... Until then go back to Stormfront.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Not quite. I will persist in responding to whatever I wish, whenever I wish, however I wish. I'm pleased to see that it bugs the crap out of you.


So why aren't you ignoring me? Answer: because you can't. You are compelled to read every word of what I write and respond when it becomes too much to bear. I am pleased to cause you so much consternation and loss of sleep.


You could always just ask, or shoot me a PM. "Hey IBDaMann, what's on your mind?"


I did. It's a bunch of EVASIVE MISDIRECTION. It does absolutely nothing to address the morality of killing living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, it merely barks orders to not stop her from being free to do it with impunity. If you had paid attention to the video, you would have noticed that all she does is bitch about some unnamed Christians who she feels are infringing on her ability to freely kill other living humans for her own convenience. You really should actually watch the videos you post. She states directly (and I'm paraphrasing) "Hey Christians, if you don't want to kill other living humans to make your lives more convenient, then fine, don't do it, but don't prohibit me from killing all the living humans I want on whatever whim suits my fancy."

Obviously she is raving lunacy ... and you posted that crap.



The sheer insanity of allowing even junior high school students to just kill other living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, is something I expect from the Taliban and the Mafia, but I guess it's what I should expect from leftists too. Aaaah, this is why you leftists want to convert all schools into total defenselessness zones so as to maximize the number of junior high and high school students who can kill other living humans who have not committed any crime. Now everything is coming clearly into focus.

So, Taichiliberal, the thought of killing which living humans gives you the most pleasure? Killing blacks? Whites? Hispanics? Women? Pygmies? Left-handed people? Who?


If you hadn't slept through highschool, you might have learned to read. The words "person," "people," "abortion," "age," "fetus," "murder," "elderly" are just some of the words that do not appear in my question.

Do you, Taichiliberal, advocate the killing of living humans* who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die? No other question is being asked.
*Living Humans defined as having a pulse and human DNA.

What's your answer ... without PIVOTING and EVASION of course?

1. No, it just seems rather obsessive for someone to keep responding to a poster who by choice cannot see their posts. When I get that notice, I just move on and ignore that poster....most normal folk do that. MAGA mooks and right wing wonks seem obsessed with ANY information that challenges their beliefs. You fit that bill, as you've just confirmed.

2. Because as I further explained, after a month or so I take some folk off the ignore list to see if they've matured some or at least learned how to debate, or even changed their views. I do this especially with persistent folk like you, begging for my attention. If it's the SOS, I just dump you back on the list.

3. See #2. Given your previous MAGA mook/right wing wonk stances, I have no need to engage you privately as that would be an obvious waste of time. Here in the open forum, everyone can see your improvement or continued folly.

4. Here's a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty of zealots like yourself. You try to replace what was discussed with the dogmatic clap trap that christo-fascists parrot ad nausea. For the reading audience, this is what you left out, ".... you would have noted that she stated that she would support and defend your right to worship and follow your religion as you see fit. But, That does NOT give YOU the right to enforce your religious beliefs on others. THAT is what our Constitution, it's Amendments and the Bill of Rights is all about. No one is forcing women to have an abortion and no one should force a woman not to have one."


5. See #4. And here is yet another blatant display of your intellectual dishonesty. You try to alter what I previously posted to suit your christo-fascist dogma. Pity for you the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing.

Here's something else that you left out, as you can't BS your way past it: The sheer insanity of forcing a junior high school girl that is a victim of rape and/or incest to bring that pregnancy to term smacks of a theocracy similar to that of the Taliban, or Al Qaeda. THAT is what YOU and your like minded ilk have put a cloak of "christianity" around.

6. Unlike you, I paid attention in school when it came to reading comprehension. One of the first things taught is how you can write a conclusion on a topic in several ways. You stupidly think that no one can assess the conclusion of what you write because you omitted certain words. Get a dictionary, then a thesaurus, then take a refresher course in reading comprehension. You and I are discussing the "christian" stance on abortion. I merely point to the biological facts that the murder of a fully BORN, independent person is NOT on par with the abortion of a developing fetus. Why the hell do you think there's the medical term "pre-mature birth"? Why do you think all types of medical machinery, drugs, etc. are incorporated to try and either prevent such from happening or keep the pre-mature child alive and developing?

But I forget I'm asking you to actually use the brain God gave you to THINK beyond the dogma. You won't do that...pride won't let you. But you sure as hell will vote against ANY social services that assist single mom's or give day care to two income families.

You christo-fascist freaks are a piece of work. I don't expect you to concede to logic. I just wanted to give you enough rope so you'd hang yourself in public view. I'm done with you. Adios.

 

[IBDaMann]

you are a fucked up troll

You would be a shitty person if you hadn't had to be reclassified as a dung beetle. You lust for the killing of living humans, whether it be one living human killing other living humans because it would make life more convenient, or whether it is one living human who is killing many other totally defenseless living humans in one of your defenselessness zones. You must have thrown Jews into ovens in a past life. All you want is for the killing of living humans to continue ... for your own amusement. You are one sick piece of shit who represents the worst of humanity ... and dung beetles. You exemplify why leftists are a lethal cancer to humanity. If our species kills itself off, it will be because humanity could not send leftists into remission.

Who do you call "sick" and "fucked up" and "troll"? Those who want to deprive you of some of that killing.

 

[BidenPresident]

You would be a shitty person if you hadn't had to be reclassified as a dung beetle. You lust for the killing of living humans, whether it be one living human killing other living humans because it would make life more convenient, or whether it is one living human who is killing many other totally defenseless living humans in one of your defenselessness zones. You must have thrown Jews into ovens in a past life. All you want is for the killing of living humans to continue ... for your own amusement. You are one sick piece of shit who represents the worst of humanity ... and dung beetles. You exemplify why leftists are a lethal cancer to humanity. If our species kills itself off, it will be because humanity could not send leftists into remission.

Who do you call "sick" and "fucked up" and "troll"? Those who want to deprive you of some of that killing.

bye

 

[IBDaMann]

1. No, it just seems rather obsessive for someone to keep responding to a poster who by choice cannot see their posts.

You read every word I write. You respond to me.

When I get that notice, I just move on and ignore that poster.

Not in my case, apparently. You get that notice and rush to see what I wrote. I would be perfectly content if you would ignore me. You're just a fly on my neighbor's ass. I don't give a shit about you. You, on the other hand, apparently obsess over my posts and feel compelled to respond. Too funny.

If it's the SOS, I just dump you back on the list.

Please, put me right back on ignore and don't ever bother me again. I'm going to hold you to this.

3. See #2. Given your previous MAGA mook/right wing wonk stances

Which would be what, may I ask? The one whereby I stand opposed to the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have expressed no desire to die? That position? The stance that opposes your lust to kill people whose deaths you believe you would find convenient, maybe even enjoy as BidenPresident does, presumably those with whom you disagree politically? That position?

I have no need to engage you privately as that would be an obvious waste of time.

... because you are too stupid to learn anything?

Here in the open forum, everyone can see your improvement or continued folly.

That's right, everyone can see me, especially those who claim to have me on "IGNORE."

4. Here's a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty of zealots like yourself. You try to replace what was discussed with the dogmatic clap trap that christo-fascists parrot ad nausea.

Here's a perfect example of you being too stupid to learn. I am an atheist. You, being a leftist, have no solutions for any problems since you leftists are the cause of almost all problems, so you resort to assigning bogus positions to your opponents that they do not hold, and then attack those bogus positions because you have nothing else. I'm waiting for you to attack my position, i.e. the one I actually hold, so that everyone can see how you support the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die ... because you are shitty.

Go on, get to it ... attack my position you piece of shit ... and don't change the wording. Let everyone see you "shred" my position.

For the reading audience, this is what you left out

I did not omit any of her EVASIVE MISDIRECTION. You quoted my thorough explanation thereof. Too funny! I guess you're just too stupid to learn.

You try to alter what I previously posted to suit your christo-fascist dogma.

I am neither a Christian nor a leftist. You're pretty stupid, aren't you? You get told that a lot, don't you? Are you saying that I somehow tried to alter what you posted by accessing your account and editing your post? ... or are you saying that I tried really hard to misquote you but I incompetently failed in my attempt?

Pity for you the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing.

Well, it will be one of ours, that's for sure.

Here's something else that you left out

Now you're chanting. I debunked your absurd argument. Being in junior highschool should not be considered license to just kill other living humans. What kind of killing-freak are you? I should call you "Dexter."

6. Unlike you, I paid attention in school

It seems pretty obvious that your education is that of someone who finally busted out of the orphanage, lied about his age and joined the Navy. You think atheists and christo-fascists are the same thing! Too funny.

You and I are discussing the "christian" stance on abortion.

Case in point. You never even learned to read. The words were right there in front of you and you quoted them. You couldn't read them. You continued to write your post never knowing what I wrote. The word "abortion" is never mentioned, nor is "Christianity" nor "fetus" nor "person" nor "people" nor "elderly" nor "God" nor "Jesus" nor "independent" ... among others.

You have no idea what my position is because you cannot read. I'll tell you what, I'll repost it again, and I will ask you to have someone read it to you and explain what I have written. Then we can talk, ... or better yet, you can put me on "IGNORE" and flee to your safe space and stop wasting my time with your inability to read.

Do you, Taichiliberal, advocate the killing of living humans* who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?

*Living Humans defined as having a pulse and human DNA.

No other question is being asked. There is no clearer way to express this simple, easy and straightforward question. Only illiteracy could prevent someone from understanding it. Ther is no shame in asking for help.

 

[IBDaMann]

bye

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, strawmen are your only fallback strategy, having been proven an imbecile.

Nope. You fucked yourself with your intellectual dishonesty. You are too cowardly to state your stupid positions because you are painfully aware of just how stupid they really are. So you redefine all of your words ... and then you attack others for not using your secret redefinitions.

You have lost all of your credibility and you thoroughly deserve all the mockery you receive for what you pulled. You might want to reconsider your whole redefinition schtick. At present, everyone is totally justified in presuming that you don't mean what you write and that you don't write what you mean.

You did it to yourself. No one else is to blame.

Have a great day.

 

[IBDaMann]

If not impossible...so close to impossible as to be indistinguishable.

Am I an "anti-abortion" person? I really don't know, you tell me. This is my overarching stance on morality. I'd love to have your comments.

Here's my position:

It is absolutely unconscionable to just kill living humans* who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die. Those who advocate for such killing are the shittiest humans.


* Living Humans defined as having a pulse and human DNA.
+ Note the absence of any mention of the word "age," "person," "God," "Jesus," "fetus," "embryo," "abortion," "euthanasia," "people," "elderly," "homosexuals," "abomination," "individual," "viable," "senile," "dependence" (of any kind), ... or any legalese.

Well, what do you think?

 

[RB 60]

1. No, it just seems rather obsessive for someone to keep responding to a poster who by choice cannot see their posts. When I get that notice, I just move on and ignore that poster....most normal folk do that. MAGA mooks and right wing wonks seem obsessed with ANY information that challenges their beliefs. You fit that bill, as you've just confirmed.

2. Because as I further explained, after a month or so I take some folk off the ignore list to see if they've matured some or at least learned how to debate, or even changed their views. I do this especially with persistent folk like you, begging for my attention. If it's the SOS, I just dump you back on the list.

3. See #2. Given your previous MAGA mook/right wing wonk stances, I have no need to engage you privately as that would be an obvious waste of time. Here in the open forum, everyone can see your improvement or continued folly.

4. Here's a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty of zealots like yourself. You try to replace what was discussed with the dogmatic clap trap that christo-fascists parrot ad nausea. For the reading audience, this is what you left out, ".... you would have noted that she stated that she would support and defend your right to worship and follow your religion as you see fit. But, That does NOT give YOU the right to enforce your religious beliefs on others. THAT is what our Constitution, it's Amendments and the Bill of Rights is all about. No one is forcing women to have an abortion and no one should force a woman not to have one."


5. See #4. And here is yet another blatant display of your intellectual dishonesty. You try to alter what I previously posted to suit your christo-fascist dogma. Pity for you the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing.

Here's something else that you left out, as you can't BS your way past it: The sheer insanity of forcing a junior high school girl that is a victim of rape and/or incest to bring that pregnancy to term smacks of a theocracy similar to that of the Taliban, or Al Qaeda. THAT is what YOU and your like minded ilk have put a cloak of "christianity" around.

6. Unlike you, I paid attention in school when it came to reading comprehension. One of the first things taught is how you can write a conclusion on a topic in several ways. You stupidly think that no one can assess the conclusion of what you write because you omitted certain words. Get a dictionary, then a thesaurus, then take a refresher course in reading comprehension. You and I are discussing the "christian" stance on abortion. I merely point to the biological facts that the murder of a fully BORN, independent person is NOT on par with the abortion of a developing fetus. Why the hell do you think there's the medical term "pre-mature birth"? Why do you think all types of medical machinery, drugs, etc. are incorporated to try and either prevent such from happening or keep the pre-mature child alive and developing?

But I forget I asking you to actually use the brain God gave you to THINK beyond the dogma. You won't do that...pride won't let you. But you sure as hell will vote against ANY social services that assist single mom's or give day care to two income families.

You christo-fascist freaks are a piece of work. I don't expect you to concede to logic. I just wanted to give you enough rope so you'd hang yourself in public view. I'm done with you. Adios.

The forum prodigy has spoken!

All other opinions/replies are moot.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Am I an "anti-abortion" person?

I do not know for sure, but I suspect you are. I am an anti-abortion person...and I think most people are anti-abortion.

But I think a woman should have the right to make a choice about whether to continue a pregnancy occurring in her own body. That, the right to make a choice on this specific issue, is the real question.

I really don't know, you tell me.

Sorry, I cannot help you here.

This is my overarching stance on morality. I'd love to have your comments.

Here's my position:

It is absolutely unconscionable to just kill living humans* who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die. Those who advocate for such killing are the shittiest humans.

Okay, I understand that part of your stance...and I sorta agree. I personally hate the notion of killing anyone or anything. I do not kill spiders, for instance. I capture them and release them outside when I find them in the house. I do not even swat mosquitos or flies. If there are yellow-jackets in my yard, my wife has to do the exterminating, because I see them as living creatures looking to do what a particular living creature does.

So I do not like the idea of killing.

Some people do kill things...other people at times. Are they the "shittiest humans?" I know of many shitty humans who do other things that bother me just as much...and there are people who do things other than killing that I consider shittier than people who kill things.

* Living Humans defined as having a pulse and human DNA.
+ Note the absence of any mention of the word "age," "person," "God," "Jesus," "fetus," "embryo," "abortion," "euthanasia," "people," "elderly," "homosexuals," "abomination," "individual," "viable," "senile," "dependence" (of any kind), ... or any legalese.

Well, what do you think?

An exception I make is an abortion. A pregnancy is a unique situation...which occurs in a particular woman's body. If a woman with a pregnancy occurring in her own body chooses to end that pregnancy for any reason whatever...she should be able to do so.

And I think that exercising the option of abortion should be made as safe and medically sound as possible for the woman.

That is my opinion.

 

[Litmus]

Nope. You fucked yourself with your intellectual dishonesty. You are too cowardly to state your stupid positions because you are painfully aware of just how stupid they really are. So you redefine all of your words ... and then you attack others for not using your secret redefinitions.

You have lost all of your credibility and you thoroughly deserve all the mockery you receive for what you pulled. You might want to reconsider your whole redefinition schtick. At present, everyone is totally justified in presuming that you don't mean what you write and that you don't write what you mean.

You did it to yourself. No one else is to blame.

Have a great day.

'agnostic' is a word with a meaning, dipshit.

all your superfuous bullshit doesn't change that.

quit garbaging up people's minds with your dumb shit.

 

[IBDaMann]

But I think a woman should have the right to make a choice about whether to [kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die]. That, the right to make a choice [about killing another living human to make one's life more convenient], is the real question.

Would you allow yourself to be killed if someone else, say a woman for example, were to assert that your death would make her life more convenient? Would you respect her right to make that choice herself?

So I do not like the idea of killing.

The issue here is morality and what kind of society in which we wish to live. Is it "OK" in your opinion for one living human to arbitrarily and capriciously decide to kill another living human to make life more convenient, without having to get any permission from anyone, without the soon-to-be-executed living human having to have committed any sort of crime (or minor infraction) or getting so much as a day in court to request a stay of execution by legal representation, ... or even a writ of habeus corpus? Do you think that a society that allows this might run into some very bad unforeseen consequences?

Some people do kill things...other people at times. Are they the "shittiest humans?"

My position is that if they are killing living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die then yes, they are the shittiest of humans.

An exception I make is an abortion.

Is this because you believe that any living human should be vulnerable to summary execution if he is young enough? What about when legislators begin debating the age that someone is "old enough" to be summarily executed for someone else's convenience, e.g. grab that inheritance NOW? What about when legislators begin discussing the age range for the "mid-life window" for when a living human should be required to register for potential summary execution for whatever reason, e.g. to curb claimed overpopulation, to serve a mandatory government organ donation program, etc ...?

You bring up a good point worth discussing, i.e. the age ranges that Congress should establish as the age ranges in which a living human should be able to be summarily executed, either for someone else's convenience or on a government whim, under the categories of "sufficiently young," "sufficiently old" and "just right." We should start a thread on this. But this is your point, so you get to go first. What age do you think makes someone "young enough" to be summarily executed? Democrat Ralph Northam places that age some unspecified time after birth. Maryland Democrats are still considering allowing newborns to be euthanized up to 28 days after birth if the mother thinks that it would make her life more convenient (and she'll get 27 days to see firsthand just how inconvenient infants really are). What do you think?

What age is "old enough" for a living human to just be summarily killed?

What age window in the middle of the expected lifespan do you think is the right time to target a living human for potential execution?

And I think that exercising the option of abortion should be made as safe and medically sound as possible for the woman.

... unless she is being targeted for summary execution, right? Then it wouldn't matter how unsafe it might be, right?

I appreciate your comments.

 

[IBDaMann]

'agnostic' is a word with a meaning, dipshit.

... and it doesn't mean what you have redefined it to mean and what you attack others for not accepting it to mean. You're a total fucking screwball. Nobody should be foolish enough to believe that you mean whatever it is you write in your posts. But thank you, you just reminded me to add "nuts" to my shopping list.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Would you allow yourself to be killed if someone else, say a woman for example, were to assert that your death would make her life more convenient? Would you respect her right to make that choice herself?

Argumentum ad absurdum. What a silly premise. The point being that a pregnancy impacts only the woman's body. No one is saying that it has to be ANY inconvenience, just one that is related to her body. If that fetus could exist outside her body at any stage this wouldn't be a real conversation. Unfortunately due to human biology the fetus is absolutely 100% non-viable outside her womb for a great deal of time. That makes it her issue and hers alone.

The issue here is morality and what kind of society in which we wish to live. Is it "OK" in your opinion for one living human to arbitrarily and capriciously decide to kill another living human to make life more convenient

With obvious caveats being that it must be a life that is wholly dependent upon the body of the woman to continue its existence. Otherwise your premise is absurd on its face.

My position is that if they are killing living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die then yes, they are the shittiest of humans.

The real debate is NOT over this, but rather "what constitutes a life". A being whose sole ability to survive is 100% due to the internal workings of another being is hard to define as a "life" in the sense YOU wish to make it. Your language is hyperbolic rhetoric intended to put the absolute worst spin on something based on your personal BELIEFS.

No one argues about killing a toddler. That's murder. But taking the "life" of a being that cannot exist outside of her body is hardly the same concept.

The key being that YOU ARE FREE TO CONSIDER EVEN FERTILIZED EGGS AS LIFE but you cannot force that on another person. ESPECIALLY IF IT IS NOT YOUR BODY THAT IS IN THE PROCESS.


Personally I would have a tough time making a decision for an abortion if I were in that situation but thankfully I will never be. My own morality is to vote for improved social safety nets and improved access to healthcare and welfare (even at cost to myself) so that fewer people will feel the need to choose abortion.

I find that route to be INFINITELY more "moral" than simply screaming at women and calling them murderers while I sit on my fat ass and do nothing.

That's always been my main hit on the supposed "pro-life" side: they don't actually care about life because once born that kid is on its own and let them rot if mom can't afford enough food for them. That's less pro-life than any pro-choice person I have ever met.

 

[IBDaMann]

Argumentum ad absurdum.

Incorrect. That is something you have to show; you don't get to simply declare it.

The point being that a pregnancy impacts only the woman's body.

This depends on how you (mis)define "pregnancy." Nonetheless, it has no relevancy to this discussion. Were you planning on commenting on the topic that I am discussing or are you going to try to derail my topic?

I am speaking of the living human that is being killed by another living human. Are you trying to say that you are perfectly fine with one living human killing another living human in an attempt to make one's life more convenient? Is that your position?

If that fetus could exist outside her body

Neither the word "fetus" nor the word "body" appear in the question. I'll write it out for you again:

Do you advocate and/ the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?

Political prisoners are good examples. They haven't committed any crime, but in many parts of the world they are summarily killed nonetheless.

The real debate is NOT over this, but rather "what constitutes a life".

Nope. I have determined what the real debate is, i.e. the advocacy for the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

No one argues about killing a [very young living human].

Sure there are people who argue that if a living human is young enough then he should be able to be summarily killed. In fact, you are one of those people who argue that. Frankly, I think that is a shitty position.

That's murder.

Right. You recognize it as something that should be highly illegal ... and you advocate for it.

Personally I would have a tough time making a decision for an abortion if I were in that situation

You're answering the wrong question. Nobody is asking if you are fine with the killing of a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die ... as long as that living human is not you. But what if you were marked for execution because someone filed the necessary paperwork to get your execution declared a "convenience"? You opened this thread showing just how adeptly you can EVADE that question. So, instead of declaring it to be absurd, would you please answer it honestly? That answer would be much better coming from you than coming from me.

My own morality is to vote for improved social safety nets

Nope. You are totally immoral, and you are an intellectual coward. You have done nothing but EVADE, dismiss and alter the question in a desperate panic to not let your shitty misanthropy be revealed openly.

I find [the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die] to be INFINITELY more "moral" than simply [allowing women the opportunity to realize that they are killing a living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die].

I get it. You are morally bankrupt. You would do whatever is necessary to distract women and never let them realize that they are carrying a separate, living human ... in the hopes of tricking them into killing that living human ... presumably because there is something about the killing of living humans that you find thrilling.

 

[Litmus]

... and it doesn't mean what you have redefined it to mean and what you attack others for not accepting it to mean. You're a total fucking screwball. Nobody should be foolish enough to believe that you mean whatever it is you write in your posts. But thank you, you just reminded me to add "nuts" to my shopping list.

redefining and destroying words is your bag, papa.

get a new one.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Would you allow yourself to be killed if someone else, say a woman for example, were to assert that your death would make her life more convenient? Would you respect her right to make that choice herself?

No, I would not. So what is your point about what I actually said?

(ASIDE: Among the shittiest of humans for me are people who change the wording of quotes during Internet discussions. It is something only the lowest dung of humans do. Just sayin'.)

The issue here is morality and what kind of society in which we wish to live. Is it "OK" in your opinion for one living human to arbitrarily and capriciously decide to kill another living human to make life more convenient, without having to get any permission from anyone, without the soon-to-be-executed living human having to have committed any sort of crime (or minor infraction) or getting so much as a day in court to request a stay of execution by legal representation, ... or even a writ of habeus corpus? Do you think that a society that allows this might run into some very bad unforeseen consequences?

Possibly. But aside from the unnecessary hysteria of your post, I still think the "pregnancy" issue is unique enough that allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses will not corrupt the entire of society in the way you are suggesting.

Preventing a woman from being able to make such a choice has the potential for a MUCH MORE CORRUPTING influence on our society...in my opinion.

My position is that if they are killing living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die then yes, they are the shittiest of humans.

It is my opinion that you should have a right to your opinion no matter how, in my opinion, it veers from reality as I see it.

Is this because you believe that any living human should be vulnerable to summary execution if he is young enough? What about when legislators begin debating the age that someone is "old enough" to be summarily executed for someone else's convenience, e.g. grab that inheritance NOW? What about when legislators begin discussing the age range for the "mid-life window" for when a living human should be required to register for potential summary execution for whatever reason, e.g. to curb claimed overpopulation, to serve a mandatory government organ donation program, etc ...?

I do not do "believing", but if you are asking my opinion about abortion, I would offer what I have said all along. A pregnancy is a unique situation...and it is my opinion that a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body if she chooses...

...no matter that some people erroneously, in my opinion, want to picture that as a murder or unwarranted execution.

You bring up a good point worth discussing, i.e. the age ranges that Congress should establish as the age ranges in which a living human should be able to be summarily executed, either for someone else's convenience or on a government whim, under the categories of "sufficiently young," "sufficiently old" and "just right." We should start a thread on this. But this is your point, so you get to go first. What age do you think makes someone "young enough" to be summarily executed? Democrat Ralph Northam places that age some unspecified time after birth. Maryland Democrats are still considering allowing newborns to be euthanized up to 28 days after birth if the mother thinks that it would make her life more convenient (and she'll get 27 days to see firsthand just how inconvenient infants really are). What do you think?

I think you have fallen off the edge here, Mann. Your question is an insult.

What age is "old enough" for a living human to just be summarily killed?

This is part of the insult...and not nearly as clever as you might consider it to be.

What age window in the middle of the expected lifespan do you think is the right time to target a living human for potential execution?

This also.

... unless she is being targeted for summary execution, right? Then it wouldn't matter how unsafe it might be, right?

And this.

I appreciate your comments.

Thank you. I am always willing to share them.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Argumentum ad absurdum. What a silly premise. The point being that a pregnancy impacts only the woman's body. No one is saying that it has to be ANY inconvenience, just one that is related to her body. If that fetus could exist outside her body at any stage this wouldn't be a real conversation. Unfortunately due to human biology the fetus is absolutely 100% non-viable outside her womb for a great deal of time. That makes it her issue and hers alone.




With obvious caveats being that it must be a life that is wholly dependent upon the body of the woman to continue its existence. Otherwise your premise is absurd on its face.



The real debate is NOT over this, but rather "what constitutes a life". A being whose sole ability to survive is 100% due to the internal workings of another being is hard to define as a "life" in the sense YOU wish to make it. Your language is hyperbolic rhetoric intended to put the absolute worst spin on something based on your personal BELIEFS.

No one argues about killing a toddler. That's murder. But taking the "life" of a being that cannot exist outside of her body is hardly the same concept.

The key being that YOU ARE FREE TO CONSIDER EVEN FERTILIZED EGGS AS LIFE but you cannot force that on another person. ESPECIALLY IF IT IS NOT YOUR BODY THAT IS IN THE PROCESS.


Personally I would have a tough time making a decision for an abortion if I were in that situation but thankfully I will never be. My own morality is to vote for improved social safety nets and improved access to healthcare and welfare (even at cost to myself) so that fewer people will feel the need to choose abortion.

I find that route to be INFINITELY more "moral" than simply screaming at women and calling them murderers while I sit on my fat ass and do nothing.

That's always been my main hit on the supposed "pro-life" side: they don't actually care about life because once born that kid is on its own and let them rot if mom can't afford enough food for them. That's less pro-life than any pro-choice person I have ever met.

This was a very well conceived and written commentary on Mann's post. Thank you for it.