Planned Parenthood

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1081

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

If you violate another person’s rights, yes a natural right can be removed.[/quote]

Can you detail your reasoning behind this?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

There is nothing inherently anti-human rights about putting people in prison.[/quote]

Wouldn’t denying an individual their ability to determine their own fate (I use this phrasing for convenience’s sake, and because I hope y’all recognize what I mean by it) be anti-natural right?

Of course, I’d imagine the fellow is thrown into prison (having his/her natural right stripped off) precisely because he/she did something that violated another’s natural right in some form or fashion.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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. [/quote]

Not really. Rather, I’m curious how natural right can incorporate punishment.

Punishing someone requires you to do something to someone-the very opposite of natural rights as described in the post I quote here.

And this really just goes straight back to the question I ask at the start of this post.

1082

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

If you violate another person’s rights, yes a natural right can be removed.[/quote]

Can you detail your reasoning behind this?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

There is nothing inherently anti-human rights about putting people in prison.[/quote]

Wouldn’t denying an individual their ability to determine their own fate (I use this phrasing for convenience’s sake, and because I hope y’all recognize what I mean by it) be anti-natural right?

Of course, I’d imagine the fellow is thrown into prison (having his/her natural right stripped off) precisely because he/she did something that violated another’s natural right in some form or fashion.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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. [/quote]

Not really. Rather, I’m curious how natural right can incorporate punishment.

Punishing someone requires you to do something to someone-the very opposite of natural rights as described in the post I quote here.

And this really just goes straight back to the question I ask at the start of this post.[/quote]

Ideally, punishment would actually maximize the ability of humans to possess natural rights. through both prevention and removing persons who violate others from the general population. Hence putting a murderer to death can actually preserve more life than it takes. locking up a rapist and thereby preventing more rapes isn’t anti natural rights. Neither is self defense. You are at minimum preserving just as many rights of the non-aggressor as removing rights from the aggressor.

If you want to get into punishments for victimless crimes, yeah, I can buy that those are anti-natural rights.

1083

[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. Most of this thread is spent arguing misunderstandings like that.[/quote]

Hence us continuously pointing out how that is the same way slavery was viewed for 1,000’s of years.

It’s an inconsistency in our approach to human relations. We still stifle the innocent for personal convenience. The pro-aborts tend to try and rationalize it all away with bullshit, and in some cases thinking they are God-like and “know that being dead is better than being unwanted”.

If pro-aborts want to pretend people aren’t people, then at least have the fucking nuts to admit it. Admit you don’t care. Admit you’re no different than a slave owner. Admit you’re cool with whole sale slaughter of the innocent for your convenience. But they won’t…

Why? Because then a lot less of them would be pro-abort.

1084

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Umm, only if they are wanted and can be provided an optimal environment.[/quote]

I wasn’t wanted.

In fact I was told I was a “lack of funding” away from not being here today. Thank god both sets of grandparents wouldn’t fund an abortion.

My father left before I was old enough to remember, and I was just an anchor to my mother’s good time.

I’m an infinitely better parent than mine were because I’m home at night, and sober when I am. That’s it. That’s all it takes. I don’t have to be nice to my kids, and I’m STILL a better parent.

You think my daughter will grow up thinking she’d be better off if I have just been vacuumed up rather than survive and try to make a better life for her?

1085

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

If you violate another person’s rights, yes a natural right can be removed.[/quote]

Can you detail your reasoning behind this?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

There is nothing inherently anti-human rights about putting people in prison.[/quote]

Wouldn’t denying an individual their ability to determine their own fate (I use this phrasing for convenience’s sake, and because I hope y’all recognize what I mean by it) be anti-natural right?

Of course, I’d imagine the fellow is thrown into prison (having his/her natural right stripped off) precisely because he/she did something that violated another’s natural right in some form or fashion.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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. [/quote]

Not really. Rather, I’m curious how natural right can incorporate punishment.

Punishing someone requires you to do something to someone-the very opposite of natural rights as described in the post I quote here.

And this really just goes straight back to the question I ask at the start of this post.[/quote]

Ideally, punishment would actually maximize the ability of humans to possess natural rights. through both prevention and removing persons who violate others from the general population. Hence putting a murderer to death can actually preserve more life than it takes. locking up a rapist and thereby preventing more rapes isn’t anti natural rights. Neither is self defense. You are at minimum preserving just as many rights of the non-aggressor as removing rights from the aggressor.

If you want to get into punishments for victimless crimes, yeah, I can buy that those are anti-natural rights. [/quote]

A very low percentage of murders are repeat offenders (like 1%). If your goal is to preserve maximum natural rights wouldn’t it make sense to limit their sentence as low as possible to maximize the overall natural rights?

Also how are you weighting the non-mudrer cases against each other? Surely a rape is denying someone their natural rights but for how long? Even if some guy raped 1 woman a day for the rest of his life, him serving life in prison is overall more natural rights denied than if he was free.

1087

[quote]Blowharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

A very low percentage of murders are repeat offenders (like 1%)…[/quote]

And why do you suppose this is the case?[/quote]

Because most people do not kill for fun or gratification , they kill because of anger or greed or spite but what does this have to do with results of people that do something for gratification and fun ?

1088

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Umm, only if they are wanted and can be provided an optimal environment.[/quote]

I wasn’t wanted.

In fact I was told I was a “lack of funding” away from not being here today. Thank god both sets of grandparents wouldn’t fund an abortion.

My father left before I was old enough to remember, and I was just an anchor to my mother’s good time.

I’m an infinitely better parent than mine were because I’m home at night, and sober when I am. That’s it. That’s all it takes. I don’t have to be nice to my kids, and I’m STILL a better parent.

You think my daughter will grow up thinking she’d be better off if I have just been vacuumed up rather than survive and try to make a better life for her?[/quote]

Beans while i agree your is a touching story , I would say it worked the way it was supposed to , your grand Parents took you in . If you grew up in a home that you were unwanted you may be some drug addled asshole , rather than the up tight asshole you are :slight_smile:

1089

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
anted".

If pro-aborts want to pretend people aren’t people, [/quote]

EYE ROLL the people that want to control other people’s sex life want to claim a glob of goo is a person just like they want to claim it is a religious right to dictate behavior of your employees and it is your religious right to dictate how
your tax dollars are spent .

All they want is to insert their beliefs on other people

1090

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the people that want to control other people’s sex life [/quote]

right, because killing someone isn’t controlling their sex life?

Fuck you’re retarded.

Pro-life people want to protect the rights of unborn people, not regulate sexual activity.

Pro-aborts what to continue to see people slaughtered before they are old enough to enjoy sex, or baseball, or TV, or love, or music, or art or anything.

You are the one controlling people, not I. It isn’t my fault nature dictates a woman has to carry the unborn. Sorry that is the case, I truly am, but we can’t change that. Bit just because we can’t change nature doesn’t mean you get to deny it in order to murder babies at will for convenience.

And my grandparents didn’t take me in. I did grow up where you just assumed I couldn’t have and been successful.

1091

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Pro-life people want to protect the rights [/quote]

Don’t you find it Ironic the same people you claim want to protect rights are the same people that want Corporations to be able to pollute air and water

They are the same people that want to fill our prisons with non violent people .

they are the same people that want to (NOT) pay for birth Control even though it is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and so decrease te need to abortions .

The same people that ARE ALL ERECT over capital punishment , even though we know there are many in jail that are innocent .

The same people that love to see Israel bomb the fuck out of Palestine and trample Palestine’s rights

Are these the people that you are saying "want to protect the rights "(CUT AND PASTE)???

1092

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Don’t you find it Ironic [/quote]

No, I do not find the fact you can’t actually rebut or even address what I said ironic. Nor do I find you posting a bunch of irrelevant, non-comparable things ironic.

In fact, you inability to actually defend your positions are what I’ve come to expect at this point.

1093

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Don’t you find it Ironic [/quote]

No, I do not find the fact you can’t actually rebut or even address what I said ironic. Nor do I find you posting a bunch of irrelevant, non-comparable things ironic.

In fact, you inability to actually defend your positions are what I’ve come to expect at this point. [/quote]

You find me pointing out what you call and I quote "Pro-life people want to protect the rights " are those like the rights of those that want to marry some one of the same sex? Or are we speaking of some other sort of rights ?

1094

All people don?t understand natural family planning so that very well could explain the twenty-four percent failure rate. The method we use is VERY accurate. We look at the mucus to determine if an egg is present in the uterus. Super easy and no guess work, I believe the numbers are over the ninety-ninth percentile, I just do not have the exact number memorized. Plus if you do not want to have children, do not have sex. This really isn?t rocket science!!

[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.

Again, if you do not want to provide for a child, then do not have sex. If you want sex at all times, whenever you want, that is a very, very selfish attitude in my opinion. Who are you thinking of other than yourself? No one.

[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]

1095

This post is for everyone in this conversation, or evening simply following along.

Many people believe birth is the answer to solving the dilemma of high abortions currently in the world. Birth control is not going to stop abortions from occurring. The name BIRTH CONTROL says it all. The birth is the only thing being stopped, or controlled. A child is still created, the birth simply never happens because ALL birth control is abortifacient. Except for barriers like condoms and diaphragms [where the egg and sperm never meet] all birth control kills a child because the uterine wall does not allow for the fertilized ovum to attach to the uterine wall.

If a fetus was never created they would call the artificial hormones CONCEPTION control.

1096

Where does this ingredients discussion come from?? But I will answer none the less.

Now if the ingredients and the timing are correct, yes an autonomous person IS created.

A fertilized chicken egg is not the same thing as a human pittbull. A fertilized chicken egg will grow into a chick if placed under a heat lamp. An embryo grows inside of a mother.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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]

1097

Again pittbull, where is your scientific SOURCE showing the clump of cells is just a ?glob of goo??

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
anted".

If pro-aborts want to pretend people aren’t people, [/quote]

EYE ROLL the people that want to control other people’s sex life want to claim a glob of goo is a person just like they want to claim it is a religious right to dictate behavior of your employees and it is your religious right to dictate how
your tax dollars are spent .

All they want is to insert their beliefs on other people[/quote]

1098

Avoid this question pittbull because there is only one answer!

Can a homosexual couples EVER produce life on their own?

Only hypothetically can it happen. Nature does not bend to will of what people think.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You find me pointing out what you call and I quote "Pro-life people want to protect the rights " are those like the rights of those that want to marry some one of the same sex? Or are we speaking of some other sort of rights ?
[/quote]

1099

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Where does this ingredients discussion come from?? But I will answer none the less.

Now if the ingredients and the timing are correct, yes an autonomous person IS created.[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think you answered your own question

1100

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
All people don?t understand natural family planning so that very well could explain the twenty-four percent failure rate. The method we use is VERY accurate. We look at the mucus to determine if an egg is present in the uterus. Super easy and no guess work, I believe the numbers are over the ninety-ninth percentile, I just do not have the exact number memorized. Plus if you do not want to have children, do not have sex. This really isn?t rocket science!!

[/quote]

I am glad you are not one of those kooks that think sex is bad and only for creation