Brett Kavanaugh, great justice or greatest justice?

[Uncle Sparky]

So if you are against Choice, if a woman choses to have a baby, you are against it.

[Giancarlo]

Ah, the usual 'whataboutism'.

Still doesn't change my point. If you sincerely believe in human rights, why do you believe that it's ok to kill children in the womb?



How am I a fool? None of us would be here today if we were aborted. We can't exercise our human rights if we're not born. Right to life must come first.

Whataboutism... You have got to be ****ing kidding me. You right wingers do whataboutisms all the ****ing time. Are you going to bring up Hillary? Or how about Obama? That's what you right wingers do when you get destroyed in an argument.

You are a fool and a moron. Right to life? Women have a right to choose. You don't get to make that choice for them.

[Aeson]

But whatabout your whataboutism, hmmm?

[Broken_Erika]

Whatabout my whataboutism?

[spambot]

I wouldn't be here if my parents hadn't mated. Make sex compulsory!

[Ben Kenobi]

You have got to be ****ing kidding me. You right wingers do whataboutisms all the ****ing time.

And that's exactly what you're doing here. Rather than discuss the issue you immediately said, "what about this". What about that? Still doesn't change that you advocate for the elimination of unborn children. How does that jive with your support for human rights? These positions seem to be directly contradictory.

Right to life? Women have a right to choose. You don't get to make that choice for them.

The principle is sound. If the state says that you have the right to kill people, in what sense do the people in such a state have human rights? You can't exercise any of your freedoms if you are dead. You have to have a state with a rule of law that punishes people for killing others if you want to have human rights.

[Giancarlo]

And that's exactly what you're doing here. Rather than discuss the issue you immediately said, "what about this". What about that? Still doesn't change that you advocate for the elimination of unborn children. How does that jive with your support for human rights? These positions seem to be directly contradictory.



The principle is sound. If the state says that you have the right to kill people, in what sense do the people in such a state have human rights? You can't exercise any of your freedoms if you are dead. You have to have a state with a rule of law that punishes people for killing others if you want to have human rights.

You advocate murder of those who don't follow your religion and murdering kids with cancer. Those dying kids are too expensive and don't deserve healthcare afterall.

Conservatives: When you are in the womb, you are good. When you are born you are ****ed, until you reach military age of course.

[Ben Kenobi]

And there we go. "what about this?" Yawn.

Conservatives: When you are in the womb, you are good. When you are born you are ****ed, until you reach military age of course.

Actually conservatives prefer a voluntary military because it fights better. The only folks who favor a draft are liberals.

[Proteus_MST]

...
The principle is sound. If the state says that you have the right to kill people, in what sense do the people in such a state have human rights? You can't exercise any of your freedoms if you are dead. You have to have a state with a rule of law that punishes people for killing others if you want to have human rights.

A heap of cells in the womb that doesn't even have developed a neural system cannot execute any freedoms because it is still less developerd than a simple worm.
Even a Nematode in your gastrointestinal tract is more developed and more capable of executing any freedoms (and nevertheless brutal doctors will kill him if they discover its presence ... why don't catholics go to the barricades about the massive slaughter of countless nematodes?)

[I AM I AM MOBIUS]

Ben Kenobi.

Deliberately a **** all his life.

Discuss!

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

my guy1

[Ben Kenobi]

A heap of cells in the womb that doesn't even have developed a neural system cannot execute any freedoms because it is still less developerd than a simple worm.

Ok. Say we did genetic testing on every child in the womb to determine their percentage of black ancestry and then decided to abort everyone over, say 1/64th black ancestry.

Would this be ok or no? I mean, if you're right that the unborn are merely a heap of cells, than there's nothing wrong with the former.

why don't catholics go to the barricades about the massive slaughter of countless nematodes?)

You might see the question as facetious, but it's actually a good one. It's because there's a difference between human beings and nematodes. All of us had to pass through this stage of our life in order to exist now. Killing us in the womb would prevent us from ever getting to exercise these rights.

[Giancarlo]

And there we go. "what about this?" Yawn.



Actually conservatives prefer a voluntary military because it fights better. The only folks who favor a draft are liberals.

more stupidity.



You brought up Venezuela in the other thread when I wasn't discussing Venezuela. That qualifies you as a stupid hypocrite.

[Proteus_MST]

Ok. Say we did genetic testing on every child in the womb to determine their percentage of black ancestry and then decided to abort everyone over, say 1/64th black ancestry.

Would this be ok or no? I mean, if you're right that the unborn are merely a heap of cells, than there's nothing wrong with the former.
.

Well, I would see this as strange, but yes,I would see it as O.K., if it happens with the consent of the pregnant woman in question ... as youz said, it is just a heap of cells at this stage.

You might see the question as facetious, but it's actually a good one. It's because there's a difference between human beings and nematodes. All of us had to pass through this stage of our life in order to exist now. Killing us in the womb would prevent us from ever getting to exercise these rights.

A few questions:

1) Lets say a woman in her 20s has a 20% chance to die from a pregnacy. Would it be O.K. in this case to abort the fetus? After all the woman could have more children in the future ... and the pregnancy would bring with it a 20% risk that all these potential future unborn children won't have a chance to be born.
2) Same question as 1) but this time the woman has a 60% risk do die from the pregnancy
3) Same question as 1) but this time the woman has a 80% risk do die from the pregnancy
4) Lets say a pregnant woman approaches the border of the USA seeking asylum because of the high crimes and unsafe medical conditions in her country of origin. If the woman gets asylum granted, her chance of a successful pregnancy/birth are 99%. If she is returned to her home, the chance of a successful pregnacy/birth are 30& (with an additional 20% chance that the women herself dies before/when giving birth). Would it be christian duty to fight for the woman to have her asylum granted?
5) Lets day a couple approaches the US border seeking asylum because of the high crimes and unsafe medical conditions in their country of origin. The female part of the couple is not pregnant, but if asylum is granted, there is a 70% probvability that the woman gets pregnant and successfully gives birth to one or more children. In the country of origin, the chances are high that either one of the couple is killed before a pregnancy ensues, or that the pregnancy fails due to some medical consdition that cannot be treated (or even disgnosed) in their country of origin. Would it be christian duty to fight for the couple to have their asylum granted?

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I would see this as strange, but yes,I would see it as O.K., if it happens with the consent of the pregnant woman in question ... as youz said, it is just a heap of cells at this stage.

Most would see it as a genocidal attempt to exterminate a race... which it is.

[Ben Kenobi]

1) Lets say a woman in her 20s has a 20% chance to die from a pregnacy. Would it be O.K. in this case to abort the fetus? After all the woman could have more children in the future ... and the pregnancy would bring with it a 20% risk that all these potential future unborn children won't have a chance to be born.

Depends on the circumstances. Ectopic pregnancy? Sure. Nothing we can do at this point to save the child. Past 24 weeks? Do a C-section and save the life of both. Cancer is probably the only situation that this would come up, where chemo during pregnancy has an inherent risk to both mother and child. I don't believe that the mother is required to forgo chemotherapy, even if that results in a greater risk of killing the child. Same for all the rest.

4) Lets say a pregnant woman approaches the border of the USA seeking asylum because of the high crimes and unsafe medical conditions in her country of origin. If the woman gets asylum granted, her chance of a successful pregnancy/birth are 99%. If she is returned to her home, the chance of a successful pregnacy/birth are 30& (with an additional 20% chance that the women herself dies before/when giving birth). Would it be christian duty to fight for the woman to have her asylum granted?

I'd say the legal option would be for a legal citizen to marry the lady and sponsor her. As for asylum in general, this would not qualify for asylum. Disparities in medical care aren't a sufficient clause, and the disparities are not that stark between different countries in the world. You could just as easily argue that because one country has a specific cancer treatment that anybody in the world is entitled to access this care through asylum proceedings. Another moral option would be for care to be provided through other services like MSF and the like. This is part of why they exist.

5) Lets day a couple approaches the US border seeking asylum because of the high crimes and unsafe medical conditions in their country of origin. The female part of the couple is not pregnant, but if asylum is granted, there is a 70% probvability that the woman gets pregnant and successfully gives birth to one or more children. In the country of origin, the chances are high that either one of the couple is killed before a pregnancy ensues, or that the pregnancy fails due to some medical consdition that cannot be treated (or even disgnosed) in their country of origin. Would it be christian duty to fight for the couple to have their asylum granted?

Neither high crimes or unsafe medical conditions would be sufficient from a legal standpoint to claim asylum. The Christian question is a different one. We're called to respect the laws of our particular countries and my experiences with this system as a legal immigrant is that we have an obligation to respect the laws of the country at hand. There does not seem to be am imminent danger, so the best answer is to apply for legal immigration through the proper channels and not asylum.

[Giancarlo]

He's still a hypocrite... what a shocker.

He doesn't care about life on the planet. Ben views women as baby making machines. That's all he cares about.

I wonder... is this douche even married?