[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
When people say a fetus is not a human they just mean its not a human that shares the same legal protections as you and me, and its not immoral to end its life early…
[/quote]
Well, that’s the whole point, Andy. Why do you think we’re arguing?
[/quote]
Because its so ingrained in us that we sometimes forget another persons morals might not match ours.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If my wife and I do not want to have children at a given cycle, we do not have sex while she is ovulating. That is four days out of the thirty-five day cycle.
[/quote]
It seems irresponsible to me to push natural family planning if you’re opposed to abortion as it has a high failure rate (24% according to the CDC). Also, sperm can live for up to five days in a woman if conditions are optimal, so if you have unprotected sex even a few days before ovulation, pregnancy can occur.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Far more children would make this world a far better place!
[/quote]
Umm, only if they are wanted and can be provided an optimal environment.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If my wife and I do not want to have children at a given cycle, we do not have sex while she is ovulating. That is four days out of the thirty-five day cycle.
[/quote]
It seems irresponsible to me to push natural family planning if you’re opposed to abortion as it has a high failure rate (24% according to the CDC). Also, sperm can live for up to five days in a woman if conditions are optimal, so if you have unprotected sex even a few days before ovulation, pregnancy can occur.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Far more children would make this world a far better place!
[/quote]
Umm, only if they are wanted and can be provided an optimal environment.[/quote]
Did you have an optimal environment? I didn’t. So, you think the world would be a better place if I’d never been born? Do you people listen to the statements you are making?
If you are going to go around claiming the world would be better off without me, fuck you. I mean seriously, are you fucking God? Where do you people get off making these sorts of life and death decisions?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
[/quote]
I’m curious what you think about people who support execution of criminals while also opposing abortion on the basis that the child has a fundamental right to life.[/quote]
Just a bump for DoubleDuce now that I see he’s around.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
[/quote]
I’m curious what you think about people who support execution of criminals while also opposing abortion on the basis that the child has a fundamental right to life.[/quote]
Just a bump for DoubleDuce now that I see he’s around.[/quote]
Complete red herring. Revoking the right to life of someone who had their right of due process vs. killing for convenience on a whim are in no way related. If the criminal didn’t have human rights, we wouldn’t need a trial to prove they were guilty of some extreme crime. If we had someone that was in favor of killing the homeless but against abortion, then there would be some hypocrisy.
Discussing punishment for a crime after the human right of due process is unrelated to actions on an a guiltless human without any process. You can absolutely be pro death penalty for murders and anti killing innocent humans for convenience. Even putting those things in the same thought is absurd. You are comparing raping murdering criminals and the unborn.
I can also support the human right to liberty and the incarceration of rapists. You don’t?
The reverse however does require hypocrisy. If you are against the right to life of the completely innocent to the point you are in favor of killing them if it’s convenient but against removing a fully aware and fully guilty murdering criminal after they had their due process, you are a special kind of hypocrite. You think guilty murders have more right to life than the innocent and defenseless?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/15/planned-parenthood-facing-investigations-over-abhorrent-video-on-body-part/?intcmp=latestnews
Absolutely fucking disgusting. [/quote]
Yes, you are.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
[/quote]
I’m curious what you think about people who support execution of criminals while also opposing abortion on the basis that the child has a fundamental right to life.[/quote]
Just a bump for DoubleDuce now that I see he’s around.[/quote]
Complete red herring. Revoking the right to life of someone who had their right of due process vs. killing for convenience on a whim are in no way related. If the criminal didn’t have human rights, we wouldn’t need a trial to prove they were guilty of some extreme crime. If we had someone that was in favor of killing the homeless but against abortion, then there would be some hypocrisy.
Discussing punishment for a crime after the human right of due process is unrelated to actions on an a guiltless human without any process. You can absolutely be pro death penalty for murders and anti killing innocent humans for convenience. Even putting those things in the same thought is absurd. You are comparing raping murdering criminals and the unborn.
I can also support the human right to liberty and the incarceration of rapists. You don’t?
The reverse however does require hypocrisy. If you are against the right to life of the completely innocent to the point you are in favor of killing them if it’s convenient but against removing a fully aware and fully guilty murdering criminal after they had their due process, you are a special kind of hypocrite. You think guilty murders have more right to life than the innocent and defenseless?[/quote]
You create a nice argument, sounds logical, but it misses the fundamental issue. Is it morally justifiable to take another person’s life?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If my wife and I do not want to have children at a given cycle, we do not have sex while she is ovulating. That is four days out of the thirty-five day cycle.
[/quote]
It seems irresponsible to me to push natural family planning if you’re opposed to abortion as it has a high failure rate (24% according to the CDC). Also, sperm can live for up to five days in a woman if conditions are optimal, so if you have unprotected sex even a few days before ovulation, pregnancy can occur.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Far more children would make this world a far better place!
[/quote]
Umm, only if they are wanted and can be provided an optimal environment.[/quote]
Did you have an optimal environment? I didn’t. So, you think the world would be a better place if I’d never been born? Do you people listen to the statements you are making?
If you are going to go around claiming the world would be better off without me, fuck you. I mean seriously, are you fucking God? Where do you people get off making these sorts of life and death decisions?[/quote]
I think blanket statements like “far more children would make this world a far better place” are naive.
And I think it’s irresponsible to push for a method of birth control that has a high failure rate.
The best way to eliminate abortion is to eliminate unwanted pregnancy using the most effective means of birth control possible. And natural family planning does not top the list in terms of efficacy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Complete red herring. Revoking the right to life of someone who had their right of due process vs. killing for convenience on a whim are in no way related. If the criminal didn’t have human rights, we wouldn’t need a trial to prove they were guilty of some extreme crime.[/quote]
Hm.
But why would the trial even matter? Suppose someone violated another’s inherent rights (and I think this also brings up a point of whether all inherent rights are equal, or are some more important than others), and was convicted of such through due process. How does this give you the right to strip said someone of their inherent right?
Did you not write- “A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable.”
Tbh, I’m not even sure how due process under the concept of natural/inherent rights can strip an individual of their natural/inherent right. Do natural rights have that kind of power?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Discussing punishment for a crime after the human right of due process is unrelated to actions on an a guiltless human without any process. You can absolutely be pro death penalty for murders and anti killing innocent humans for convenience. Even putting those things in the same thought is absurd. You are comparing raping murdering criminals and the unborn.[/quote]
Not really. Rather, i’m comparing the act of stripping an individual of their natural/inherent right(s) for whatever reason.
Btw- thanks for replying.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
pitbull -
The brain is something that develops throughout a lifespan and that is why in ALL mammals, the new life grows with the help of the mother.
And by the way, where does “let the child die rather than torture it with force feeding” even come from??
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
we are debating a non point . But my point stands if a child’s life would be better off dead , I opt to let the child die rather than torture it with force feeding[/quote]
[/quote]
Holy Crap Dragger , this conversation was weeks ago if not months but I will give it my best , USMC , you know the man that lives with out a brain, made a statement about some mass of flesh that resembled a child that was kept from decomposing by artificial means and force fed . I may have got some points wrong but I think that was the just of it 
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So pittbull, should a two year old share the same protection as a twelve year old? How about a thirty-six year old? Why? What specifically gives someone value?
For your information, a cake will always be nothing more than ingredients and nothing will ever change that.
[/quote]
yes an autonomous person is an autonomous person but all the ingredients of a person do not make a person .
Now if your wife sends you to the store to get a chicken and you come home with this , would she think you full filled her request?
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If my wife and I do not want to have children at a given cycle, we do not have sex while she is ovulating. That is four days out of the thirty-five day cycle.
[/quote]
It seems irresponsible to me to push natural family planning if you’re opposed to abortion as it has a high failure rate (24% according to the CDC). Also, sperm can live for up to five days in a woman if conditions are optimal, so if you have unprotected sex even a few days before ovulation, pregnancy can occur.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Far more children would make this world a far better place!
[/quote]
Umm, only if they are wanted and can be provided an optimal environment.[/quote]
This board will not tolerate apposing points of view , it is their view or the highway
[quote]GoCal wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
[/quote]
I’m curious what you think about people who support execution of criminals while also opposing abortion on the basis that the child has a fundamental right to life.[/quote]
Just a bump for DoubleDuce now that I see he’s around.[/quote]
Complete red herring. Revoking the right to life of someone who had their right of due process vs. killing for convenience on a whim are in no way related. If the criminal didn’t have human rights, we wouldn’t need a trial to prove they were guilty of some extreme crime. If we had someone that was in favor of killing the homeless but against abortion, then there would be some hypocrisy.
Discussing punishment for a crime after the human right of due process is unrelated to actions on an a guiltless human without any process. You can absolutely be pro death penalty for murders and anti killing innocent humans for convenience. Even putting those things in the same thought is absurd. You are comparing raping murdering criminals and the unborn.
I can also support the human right to liberty and the incarceration of rapists. You don’t?
The reverse however does require hypocrisy. If you are against the right to life of the completely innocent to the point you are in favor of killing them if it’s convenient but against removing a fully aware and fully guilty murdering criminal after they had their due process, you are a special kind of hypocrite. You think guilty murders have more right to life than the innocent and defenseless?[/quote]
You create a nice argument, sounds logical, but it misses the fundamental issue. Is it morally justifiable to take another person’s life? [/quote]
It can be absolutely. But no, that isn’t the fundamental issue being illustrated. There is no reasonable comparison between a convicted murderer and a completely innocent human. It’s a stupid comparison and, as mentioned, it works far better the other way around. I’m also against killing innocent adults for convenience, so I’m being entirely consistent.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Complete red herring. Revoking the right to life of someone who had their right of due process vs. killing for convenience on a whim are in no way related. If the criminal didn’t have human rights, we wouldn’t need a trial to prove they were guilty of some extreme crime.[/quote]
Hm.
But why would the trial even matter? Suppose someone violated another’s inherent rights (and I think this also brings up a point of whether all inherent rights are equal, or are some more important than others), and was convicted of such through due process. How does this give you the right to strip said someone of their inherent right?
Did you not write- “A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable.”
Tbh, I’m not even sure how due process under the concept of natural/inherent rights can strip an individual of their natural/inherent right. Do natural rights have that kind of power?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Discussing punishment for a crime after the human right of due process is unrelated to actions on an a guiltless human without any process. You can absolutely be pro death penalty for murders and anti killing innocent humans for convenience. Even putting those things in the same thought is absurd. You are comparing raping murdering criminals and the unborn.[/quote]
Not really. Rather, i’m comparing the act of stripping an individual of their natural/inherent right(s) for whatever reason.
Btw- thanks for replying.[/quote]
Your rights end where another’s begin. Natural rights are negative in nature. They are the right to NOT have someone do something to you. None of them are the right to do something to someone else. If you violate another person’s rights, yes a natural right can be removed. There is nothing inherently anti-human rights about putting people in prison. You are essentially arguing that all punishment violates natural rights, like you can’t lock up a rapist. Nor, I guess could you defend yourself.
That’s a new take on natural rights, but that seems like you took a wrong turn in your logic somewhere.
Do courts and stuff always get it right? No. But you do have to have a really damn good reason and a preponderance of evidence under very narrow criteria to do something like remove the right to life. All of which is lacking in 99% of abortions.
[quote]GoCal wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/15/planned-parenthood-facing-investigations-over-abhorrent-video-on-body-part/?intcmp=latestnews
Absolutely fucking disgusting. [/quote]
Yes, you are.
[/quote]
Classy.