Pence won't take away freedom of religion.
Mike Pence for President.
Posts
Total:
397
-->
@PGA2.0
#235----The abortionist doctor does a very good job of taking control of her body,
Pregnant woman gives her consent. Read my lips/text, pregnant woman gives her consent.
Repeat after me until you get it ...pregnant woman gives her consent.....
Duhh, you still do not get it ---in the dark--- unenligtended--- and immoral.
Repeat after me until you get it,...pregnant women gives her consent aka pro-choice aka privacy rights aka get your freggin nose *v* out of pregnant womans bodily business unless she gives you her consetn.
You are a practicing religious xtremeist and Orange-Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee LINK
And you all need to be Locked Away! from moral civilized society.
Repeat after me...pregnant woman gives her consent and Lock Immoral Trumpanzees Away!
Are you on prescription medications? For what specifically? Have you gone off them against your doctors advice?
-->
@dustryder
Sorry for not responding to some other posts. Procrastination got in the way and continues to do so.
Why does something unborn and unthinking deserve rights?
Why does a sleeping person, also often close to unthinking deserve rights also?
It hasn't achieved anything, experienced anything or contributed anything.
A homeless person fits this description pretty well as well. They live off of welfare. Should they be killed for it? No. Being on welfare is not worthy of a death sentence.
It's a net drain on the woman and will be a net drain on society for years to come.
The women chose to bear the child by having sex without an IUD. She has to bear the consequences to prevent an non-consenting party from suffering. Also, if you don't want the kid, you can set the kid up for adoption or if she's worried about the foster system being overcrowded, she can use what I would call the 5 filter policy to send the kid to somewhere else who is able and willing to take care of the child.
The kid has a high chance of being more productive to society then what it costs. Not only is keeping innocent human life alive morally right, it's also economically feasible since the more people are in an area, the more urban it becomes, and therefore, the stronger the GDP per capita and the higher the GDP. I want to see how this unconventional pro life point plays out. It is an experiment.
-->
@dustryder
What do you think of musturdness's comments?
-->
@PGA2.0
You are so ignorant. Tell me what a woman is thinking before during and after an abortion, truly ignorant and yet prepared to spout that ignorance from the highest mountain and not feel any cognitive dissonance about it. The abortion doctor is given permission to perform a medical procedure on her body the same as you would need to give permission to a doctor to perform a medical procedure on your body. Being indoctrinated to reject individual thought is one of the saddest things I see in godists.
-->
@Vader
Pence believes that he shouldn't and by extension men shouldn't be alone in a room with a woman who is not his wife.
Which religion do you know of that teaches that?
-->
@disgusted
Probs Islam.
-->
@Alec
No she didn't that's why she's aborting the fetus. Please use the appropriate terms and words in your arguments, they are stupid enough without using inaccurate words.The women chose to bear the child by having sex without an IUD
-->
@Greyparrot
Does that make him a muslim? Or does it just prove that fanatical christianity is as evil as fanatical islam.
-->
@Alec
My threshold should not be taken part by part, but as a collection of disqualifying traits. Ultimately, the closest example I've heard that comes close is the "forever brain dead person" example. But of course, such people have had experiences, contributions and achievements to consider.
The women chose to bear the child by having sex without an IUD. She has to bear the consequences to prevent an non-consenting party from suffering. Also, if you don't want the kid, you can set the kid up for adoption or if she's worried about the foster system being overcrowded, she can use what I would call the 5 filter policy to send the kid to somewhere else who is able and willing to take care of the child.
I do not believe that there is any method of contraception that is 100% effective. So there will always be a portion of women who will be unfairly vilified. That aside, I do not think women should be punished in such a way regardless. Ultimately I do not believe we should ascribe rights to something that is non-viable and without the characteristics mentioned in my previous post.
Your 5 filter policy is obviously nice in an idealistic way, however in reality if such people were in abundance, there wouldn't be any orphanages.
I just think it's cruel to force an innocent to live a life unwanted without parents and a robust safety net
The kid has a high chance of being more productive to society then what it costs. Not only is keeping innocent human life alive morally right, it's also economically feasible since the more people are in an area, the more urban it becomes, and therefore, the stronger the GDP per capita and the higher the GDP. I want to see how this unconventional pro life point plays out. It is an experiment.
Well, to keep going with your economic standpoint lets assume no-one is able to terminate pregnancies. Obviously such children are going to suffer a reduced quality of life. Because either the parents weren't able to afford the child, because they adopted him out, because they resent him and/or a parent scarpered. Such children are then less likely to become productive members of society. The cost of raising a child not including college is about $233,610. This is not an insignificant figure, and there is no guarantee that such a child will escape that figure including benefits.
Obviously, while increasing GDP is welcome and an influx of workers is likely to increase that, you haven't considered the overall quality of life which can invariably only go down.
As for mustard, while I agree with his general ideas, his manner leaves much to be desired
-->
@Alec
Pence and most Christians given the chance would make every American be a Christian whether they want to or not. Gay marriage, abortion and even alcohol laws are prime examples.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Pence and most Christians given the chance would make every American be a Christian whether they want to or not.
The USA is the most powerful country in the world. If we wanted to spread Christianity by now, we would have already done it.
Gay marriage, abortion and even alcohol laws are prime examples.
Abortion has secular reasoning as to why it is wrong, homosexuality also has secular arguments as to why it should be illegal(although I don't support the anti-homosexuality position) and the right does not want to ban alcohol consumption.
-->
@dustryder
Why does something unborn and unthinking deserve rights?
Because of the nature of what it is, a human being, however undeveloped. Once you degrade and dehumanize one class of humanity what is to stop you from doing it to another class or group. That is the witness of history. For example, slavery in the USA was a devaluation of a class or group of human beings, to the point that they were treated as property, dehumanized, and yes, in many cases legally murdered, like the unborn is murdered.
It hasn't achieved anything, experienced anything or contributed anything. It's a net drain on the woman and will be a net drain on society for years to come.
So what? Can I kill you if you are less developed than I am, or because of what you have done - your lack of productivity? Should we be able to kill anyone who we see as being unproductive or lacking contribution, especially those who have not even been given the opportunity or chance to grow and demonstrate these qualities? How is that just?
If the newborn or two-year-old is a net drain and will be for years to come on the woman/mother, should she be able to kill it too? That is the kind of reasoning you are using. So justify to me on the standards you have set down here why she should not be able to kill her newborn or two-year-old based on the criterion. Or should society be able to kill those of the woman's offspring that she deems will be a net drain?
If you do not contribute to society or they don't see what you do as achieving anything as they believe you should, then should they be able to kill you too?
-->
@Alec
Never said they wanted to ban alcohol though I know some who would ban anything they don't do. They certainly restrict use though. Like when you can't buy it.
-->
@PGA2.0
Not letting someone to be born, which you have no right to, has nothing to do with caring for the under advantaged. The comparison is stupid and irrelevant. No one says kill the unborn because they are fragile you can terminate them because they don't exist yet. Just like grandma who is a vegetable. No quality of life yet
-->
@mustardness
#235----The abortionist doctor does a very good job of taking control of her body,Pregnant woman gives her consent. Read my lips/text, pregnant woman gives her consent.
So, if I give my consent for you to kill my dependent offspring that is okay with you?
Repeat after me until you get it ...pregnant woman gives her consent.....
Repeat after me, Big Bloody Deal! Why should she be allowed to give consent to kill another human being? Where is the compassion there for this helpless human being? Where is there any selflessness demonstrated by the woman?
Duhh, you still do not get it ---in the dark--- unenligtended--- and immoral.
So it seems according to you who is myopic in your view. How many books have you read on this subject? How many years have you studied this topic?
Repeat after me until you get it,...pregnant women gives her consent aka pro-choice aka privacy rights aka get your freggin nose *v* out of pregnant womans bodily business unless she gives you her consetn.
It is a matter of human decency. If not all human beings should have the basic right to life would you be the first to volunteer your right to life?
You are a practicing religious xtremeist and Orange-Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee LINK
I have NOT argued the religious aspect but basic logic and reason.
And you all need to be Locked Away! from moral civilized society.
Yeah, right. You want to lock away those who defend the most helpless and innocent of society and promote those who kill them! That is how PATHETIC your silly argument is (and yes, the last statgement is an ad hom in response to your countless ad homs).
As I type I am watching the Whitaker hearings on Fox News and how the Democrats do EXACTLY what you do all day long. That is a fallacious emotional appeal to pity and a fallacious ad hom attack on the character instead of presenting valid facts, then they drown Whitaker out by shouting him down in hearing his response. What a biased and unfair hearing by people who do not want to listen but want to craft everything to further their own biased narrative and propaganda smear.
Repeat after me...pregnant woman gives her consent and Lock Immoral Trumpanzees Away!
Repeat after me, the pregnant woman gives her consent to MURDER another human being, for that is what it is and you have not demonstrated otherwise in all your bull and fluster.
Are you on prescription medications? For what specifically? Have you gone off them against your doctors advice?
For borderline high-blood pressure and acid reflux, and no, I take them every day according to his instruction. NOW, what does this have to do with the argument? Nothing. You are trying to slur my character again with false and unrelated innuendo.
-->
@disgusted
You are so ignorant. Tell me what a woman is thinking before during and after an abortion, truly ignorant and yet prepared to spout that ignorance from the highest mountain and not feel any cognitive dissonance about it. The abortion doctor is given permission to perform a medical procedure on her body the same as you would need to give permission to a doctor to perform a medical procedure on your body. Being indoctrinated to reject individual thought is one of the saddest things I see in godists.
As usual, you demonstrate a variety of fallacious reasoning including an animosity towards me personally.
I have no idea what specific post or reference of mine you are referring to. Are you just trying to paint my whole argument as ignorant?
Permission? The medical doctor is complicit in the killing of the unborn. If the unborn is a human being, and I have given reasonable and scientific arguments that it is, then the one gives the consent to murder, the other commits the murder. The "medical procedure" is the killing of a human being. Until you can give compelling evidence that it is not your arguments that are the ones showing cognitive dissonance, not mine, we will keep coming back to this point.
I have laid out a non-religious case for life in most of my posts that have not been addressed by anything other than assertions. You have not proven the unborn is not a human being and from conception onwards. Until you can do that we cannot progress to other topics for they all come back to whether or not the unborn is a human being and whether there is any intrinsic value of being human. If there is not then your life is no more valuable than the life of the unborn and it would be open for the taking by those who deem it unfit also, as they decree into law and make it legal for your death (all a matter of choice for those in power, and as they decree, unless we as humans are all intrinsically valuable).
-->
@PGA2.0
As you have pointed out, there have already been many cases of dehumanization. Adding that which has not been born on to the pile is hardly the beginning of a slippery slope. And in this case, there is a pretty simple divide. What makes a human being a human being? Not the dictionary definition, but something slightly deeper. And my answer to this is experiences. Think of dystopian stories where humans are raised as cattle, brain dead from artificial womb to adulthood and never experiencing or affecting anything for perpetuity. By definition, of species homo sapiens, but is that entirely sufficient to declare them a human being?
And hence the difference between your counter examples and the unborn. No matter who you are and no matter how little, you have lived. We have all lived in some way, shape or form and, through living, touched someone's life in a precious and memorable way. Even the act of birth gives joy to the parents which is certainly a contribution.
What do those unborn and unwanted contribute? And no, stoking the egos' of self-righteous and selfish meddlers doesn't count.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not letting someone to be born, which you have no right to, has nothing to do with caring for the under advantaged. The comparison is stupid and irrelevant. No one says kill the unborn because they are fragile you can terminate them because they don't exist yet. Just like grandma who is a vegetable. No quality of life yet
A woman is killing her offspring in the womb who is not as developed a HUMAN BEING as she is, more dependent than she is, smaller than she is, and in a different environment than the outside world. Why should any of these factors determine how she treats another human being and if she can treat this human being and her offspring in such a manner then why can't she do the same thing with her newborn who is also smaller than she is, less developed than she is, more dependent than she is?
Why should she be allowed to not let it be born?
Why should she deny it the most basic of all human rights, the right to life?
Why should someone who is innocent die because she is being selfish?
Why is she treating some humans as different than other humans?
Answer those questions and get back to me!
Once you determine that one human being should not live because they haven't grown or fully developed into what they are what is to stop you from justifying killing others based on the SAME criterion - i.e., dependency?
The unborn is not shutting down its human existence but just starting it yet YOU want to deny it this right.
-->
@dustryder
As you have pointed out, there have already been many cases of dehumanization. Adding that which has not been born on to the pile is hardly the beginning of a slippery slope.
What is the unborn spoken of?
Is it a human being?
Is it alive?
Do all human beings have intrinsic worth?
Let's see how you answer these questions as to determine if the unborn is being dehumanized for the abortion stats since 1980 have resulted in over 1.5 billion unborn deaths. If you look at this in terms of human genocide it is the worst perpetrated in history to date.
How do people justify killing other human beings? They devalue them, degrade them, dehumanize them, then destroy them.
Have you not just downgraded a human being? Provide your proof if you say no as to what the unborn is.
And in this case, there is a pretty simple divide. What makes a human being a human being?
Its nature, what it is from the moment it starts to live. If a human sperm fertilizes a human egg and new DNA, new genetic information, new everything begins to grow, what is growing? If you can't argue most definitely that it is not a human being then should you not give it the benefit of the doubt? So, what scientific arguments do you have that it is not human? I am willing to discuss them with you.
Not the dictionary definition, but something slightly deeper. And my answer to this is experiences. Think of dystopian stories where humans are raised as cattle, brain dead from artificial womb to adulthood and never experiencing or affecting anything for perpetuity. By definition, of species homo sapiens, but is that entirely sufficient to declare them a human being?
Does human life start at conception/fertilization? If so then you are killing a human being, regardless of how DEVELOPED it is? That is the distinction you are making - its development. You are basing killing a human being on its level of development. So why stop with the unborn human being? Why not the newborn that s not as developed as the adolescent or the adult? Where do you want to draw the line since you are treating one class or group of human beings differently from others based on its development?
And hence the difference between your counter examples and the unborn. No matter who you are and no matter how little, you have lived. We have all lived in some way, shape or form and, through living, touched someone's life in a precious and memorable way. Even the act of birth gives joy to the parents which is certainly a contribution.
The argument is based on 1) what the unborn is and 2) whether human beings have intrinsic value. Answer those two question and we will continue.
What do those unborn and unwanted contribute? And no, stoking the egos' of self-righteous and selfish meddlers doesn't count.
Do you want to base whether we should kill other human beings on what they contribute? Should you be evaluated on what you contribute as someone else has decided? Will you not give the unborn the chance to show what they will contribute?
-->
@PGA2.0
Why should she be allowed to not let it be born?
IT'S HER BODY. IT'S HER BODY. IT'S HER BODY.
Why should she deny it the most basic of all human rights, the right to life?
THERE IS NOT RIGHT TO LIFE UNTIL YOU ARE ALIVE.
Why should someone who is innocent die because she is being selfish?
THE UNBORN ARE NOT INNOCENT THEY ARE NOT GUILTY THEY DON'T EXIST YET.
Why is she treating some humans as different than other humans?
WE ALL DO THAT YOU RANK WAY LOWER THEN MY FAMILY
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why should she be allowed to not let it be born?IT'S HER BODY. IT'S HER BODY. IT'S HER BODY.
Big deal. Why can't I use my body to kill others because I feel they are inconvenient?
Why should she be able to kill the most helpless and innocent because she finds it inconvenient or simply doesn't want it because she is being selfish?
Why do you want people to kill other human beings??? Why do not people think abortion is wrong except in special circumstances, like the woman's life is threatened and if she dies the unborn will die, or if the unborn is not removed it will result in her death?
Why should she deny it the most basic of all human rights, the right to life?THERE IS NOT RIGHT TO LIFE UNTIL YOU ARE ALIVE.
Alive? Are you seriously saying the unborn are not alive???
No right to life? Says who and why are they right?
Do you realize what you are saying that makes you no different than Hitler in the sense that you are dehumanizing and advocating for the death of others?
Why should someone who is innocent die because she is being selfish?THE UNBORN ARE NOT INNOCENT THEY ARE NOT GUILTY THEY DON'T EXIST YET.
Prove to me they don't exist since science says otherwise. Give me some valid, well-reasoned proofs.
What have the unborn done that is a crime?
Do you realize that your views (they do not exist) are not commonly held?
Why is she treating some humans as different than other humans?WE ALL DO THAT YOU RANK WAY LOWER THEN MY FAMILY
Not to the point of killing them. These unborn are being treated as disposable, worthy. I do not believe either regarding your family nor would I treat them that way.
-->
@dustryder
Ultimately I do not believe we should ascribe rights to something that is non-viable and without the characteristics mentioned in my previous post.
A person on anesthesia is not viable as well. Is it justified to kill someone who is in a vegetative state if you know they are going to recover? Your characteristics are:
It hasn't achieved anything, experienced anything or contributed anything. It's a net drain on the woman and will be a net drain on society for years to come.
A homeless person hasn't achieved anything worthy to society, experienced much when they were asleep, and contributed anything of value to society. They are a net drain on society for possibly their whole life. Does this justify killing homeless people, or does this make killing a homeless person significantly less bad then killing a typical white collar worker?
Your 5 filter policy is obviously nice in an idealistic way
I didn't explain my 5 filter policy. The 5 filter policy for a pregnant women is:
1: Are you able and willing without welfare(A&WWW) to take care of the child?
2: Are your parents A&WWW to take care of the child?
3: Is your extended family A&WWW to take care of the child?
4: Are any of your many friends A&WWW to take care of the child?
5: Are any of your parents many friends A&WWW to take care of the child?
For example, if I were to get a girl pregnant (I don't want to), I wouldn't have to go far, my mom said she is willing to take care of the child. However, if the answer to any of the 5 questions is yes, then you don't have to set the kid up for adoption since someone else can take care of the child. The reason why foster places exist is because people often resort to foster care places instead of the 5 filter policy.
I just think it's cruel to force an innocent to live a life unwanted without parents and a robust safety net
Lets say for the sake of argument that kids get absolutely messed up without their biological parents(they don't. I met 2 foster people and they aren't messed up). Isn't it better to be messed up then dead? Many people would say that I'm messed up by having autism, but it's better to be autistic then dead. Can you define being messed up?
Such children are then less likely to become productive members of society.
They probably will have some job. Only 3.7% of America is unemployed. They probably are a little less likely to be employed, but if they get parents, then they'll probably be employed by the time they are adults.
you haven't considered the overall quality of life which can invariably only go down.
As the population increases, the urbanization increases, the technological development rate increases, and society becomes richer. The quality of life for the individual person goes up exponentially as % of population becoming urban goes up (https://paulromer.net/old-blog/urbanization-versus-gdp-per-capita/index.html). This is why the world's GDP is increasing as the population increases. More people means more money per person.
-->
@PGA2.0
You continue to run away from the discussion taking place, that discussion concerns a woman's right to bodily autonomy, I don't care how misogynistic you are you have no right to deny her that right. Stick to the subject.
-->
@disgusted
Should you have the right to control your body to the extent of slapping another human?
Should a woman have the right to control their body to the extent of killing another human?
The answer to both of these questions is no. If you want to complain about misogyny, complain about the sex based abortions (killing the fetus because they are a girl(or a boy)) the left has kept legal in the US.
-->
@PGA2.0
How is your dehumanizing of muslims going? Tell me all about muslims.
-->
@Alec
Should a woman have the right to control their body to the extent of killing another human?
Why do you people continue with this lie, nobody is being killed.
The answer to both of these questions is no. If you want to complain about misogyny, complain about the sex based abortions (killing the fetus because they are a girl(or a boy)) the left has kept legal in the US.
Try to get an education and not an indoctrination. Left and right is the language of the terminally bewildered.
-->
@disgusted
Now that you have dropped the point of a woman losing their autonomy unjustly, you then proceed to the claim that a fetus is not a human being. However science confirms that a fetus is a human being.
-->
@Alec
A course in reading comprehension would benefit you if you weren't terminally bewildered.
-->
@disgusted
A course in reading comprehension would benefit you if you weren't terminally bewildered.
You have not refuted my claim, so it still stands. A fetus has all the necessary chromosomes to be alive and they meet all the necessary criteria to be alive(they meet all the necessary requirements for life). I used to be pro choice(for a little bit of time) but then PGA2.0 changed my mind on that. I encourage that you too have an open mind.