davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 27, 2019 13:17:59 GMT -8
With all due respect, Dave, then you are as intractable as the leftists on TOB who are also unwilling to give an inch. If both sides don't compromise a little, the conflict will never be resolved and the law must decide absolutely for one side or the other. There are probably hundreds of thousands of human zygotes stored in labs as part of in vitro fertilization efforts. Are they human beings? If they are disposed of after a couple has become pregnant and given birth, are the disposers also guilty of murder? I agree with you that I am intractable. However, to me, there can be no comprising the killing of an innocent. But, i should also,point out, if anyone can resolve my observation that, once conceived, that child is both living and human... and we do not deprive any other living human being of life or liberty without due process, I will review my position. your observation is very close to my further suggestion that the conflict will never be resolved, so long as each side argues only from their (different) platforms. So I’m perfectly willing to argue from a liberty platform and forego,the “life”argument, but we would have to stipulate, to be fair, BOTH living humans have rights to liberty and not just the host. So, as I noted earlier, in states that record reasons given for seeking an abortion, less than half of 1% (.03%) give the reason of “rape” (and for our purposes here, “incest, which is rape, adds another .01%). With such an infinitesimally small representation, it makes more sense to me to focus on that remaining 99% who “want” an abortion but don’t “need” one. Virtually every reason given by that group relates to insecurity or vanity. Intractible or not, I will not condone choosing unprotected sex because avoiding the consequence of a child is so readily available, and paid for. To me, “choice” is something a couple makes before she opens her legs. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Feb 27, 2019 17:01:07 GMT -8
Luca, you are a Doctor, how in the hell is a Doctor that euthanizes...check that...murders a baby upholding their hypocritic oath? It's the Hippocratic Oath, and there is a passage that reads: "... Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion....."So my reading of that indicates that it is a violation of the oath. Conversely, the " hypocritic oath" would be Nancy Pelosi reciting the congressional oath of office: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion............." |
|
|
|
Post by coach on Mar 2, 2019 11:04:13 GMT -8
It was my play on words - LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Mar 2, 2019 11:53:56 GMT -8
Sheesh! Trump, speaking to CPAC, just tried to say the title of this thread, but mistakenly said "death," instead of "birth."
He also seemingly didn't learn his lesson from his clumsy statement about the undesirable character of Mexican migrants, that gave the mistaken impression that he meant ALL Mexican migrants (which I'm certain he did not). Today he made the same mistake talking about the Central American migrants. Ay-yi-yi!
Of course, I was typing a post at the same time, so maybe I heard him wrong, but if I didn't, I'm quite sure the Dems will let us know about it.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 2, 2019 12:53:05 GMT -8
So who wants to keep telling me this guy is articulate?
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Mar 2, 2019 14:56:57 GMT -8
So who wants to keep telling me this guy is articulate? I don't recall anybody saying he is articulate, in fact far from it. I would rather have a Pro-American inarticulate President than a life long glib political jerk. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 2, 2019 19:39:22 GMT -8
I was the one who wrote Trump is articulate, but I didn't say he was articulate all the time...  Actually, what I wrote was he that wasn't inarticulate. Inarticulate implies being incapable of being articulate while I would suggest that articulate implies always being articulate. So Trump is indeed not inarticulate. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Mar 5, 2019 20:15:45 GMT -8
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Apr 7, 2019 20:50:16 GMT -8
Democrats: protecting unborn babies is "evil."
Protecting abortion up to the moment of birth is their #1 non-negotiable issue, which tells you all you need to know about the moral compass of this once important party.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 8, 2019 5:41:29 GMT -8
With all due respect, Dave, then you are as intractable as the leftists on TOB who are also unwilling to give an inch. If both sides don't compromise a little, the conflict will never be resolved and the law must decide absolutely for one side or the other. There are probably hundreds of thousands of human zygotes stored in labs as part of in vitro fertilization efforts. Are they human beings? If they are disposed of after a couple has become pregnant and given birth, are the disposers also guilty of murder? I take no offense. In fact, I agree with you: I am, in fact, intractable. from my perspective, all compromise on this issue results in a dead child. Abortion was forced on many of us by a deluded court and a disingenuous plaintiff. I believe the solution is to reverse those. And, honestly, I don’t expect the conflict to be resolved. Pro-abortion people will always be pro-abortion (while protesting they are not pro abortion but pro- choice). I still do not see anyone arguing with my posit that the result of conception, call it what you will, is both living and human. We don’t kill living humans without due process. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,903
|
Post by Bick on Apr 8, 2019 6:14:58 GMT -8
MDD makes a point I hadn't considered - where the in vitro fertilization fits in the abortion conversation. I hadn't considered them to be viable humans.
Where do you stand on this, Dave?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 8, 2019 7:36:30 GMT -8
MDD makes a point I hadn't considered - where the in vitro fertilization fits in the abortion conversation. I hadn't considered them to be viable humans. Where do you stand on this, Dave? Honestly, MDDad has asked me and I’ve tried to ignore him. I don’t appreciate you holding my feet to the fire, either, Bick. 🤓 so, in order to remain consistent with my “both living and human” position vis-à-vis a fertilized egg, I have to acknowledge this process should also be proscribed. I do think calling a woman who has had an abortion (or a couple who disposed of unneeded fertilized eggs) a “murderer” lends too much emotionalism and manipulation into the argument. So I will say both procedures deprive a living human of the right to life without due process... and convince myself everyone will accept that. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 8, 2019 8:29:38 GMT -8
so, in order to remain consistent with my “both living and human” position vis-à-vis a fertilized egg, I have to acknowledge this process should also be proscribed.
Yikes. So other than adoption, what is the solution for couples unable to conceive naturally? Should they not be allowed to use current medical technology to conceive a child? Or should the number of fertilized embryos be limited to one or two, with all of them required to be implanted in the mother? I'm not sure what a socially acceptable solution would be.
I do think calling a woman who has had an abortion (or a couple who disposed of unneeded fertilized eggs) a “murderer” lends too much emotionalism and manipulation into the argument.
Murder is not an emotional or manipulative term, it's a legal one. If the premeditated disposing of "human lives" without "due process" is not murder, what is it?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 8, 2019 8:43:54 GMT -8
so, in order to remain consistent with my “both living and human” position vis-à-vis a fertilized egg, I have to acknowledge this process should also be proscribed.
Yikes. So other than adoption, what is the solution for couples unable to conceive naturally? Should they not be allowed to use current medical technology to conceive a child? Or should the number of fertilized embryos be limited to one or two, with all of them required to be implanted in the mother? I'm not sure what a socially acceptable solution would be. I do think calling a woman who has had an abortion (or a couple who disposed of unneeded fertilized eggs) a “murderer” lends too much emotionalism and manipulation into the argument.
Murder is not an emotional or manipulative term, it's a legal one. If the premeditated disposing of "human lives" without "due process" is not murder, what is it? - “Current medical technology” doesn’t necessarily mean acceptable or appropriate. Value judgements still have to be made (e.g. abortion is a current medical technology, isn’t it?). I don’t know enough about available options to offer a other than adoptions or surrogacy, so I’ll leabe that one on the table for someone smarter than I am, with the affirmation that I also don’t know what a socially acceptable solution would be.
- <shrug>OK, call it murder, then. I was not presenting a legal argument. I was attempting to limit the use of emotionally charged terms.
But, are we really looking for a socially acceptable solution, or to put an end to the heinous practice of abortion (or both?) |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 8, 2019 11:42:39 GMT -8
I think any solution that isn't socially acceptable will, by definition, not be implemented.
|
|
