glassjester
Well-known member
Is this the part where you avoid answering her to preserve the appearance that you could if you really wanted to?lain:
*him
But I've been called worse.
Against abortion and against person-hood?
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
*him
But I've been called worse.
glassjester
Well-known member
Why do you believe that?
Because that is when the fetus is ready to receive a soul.
It's not a hard concept, you all just need to unlearn the nonsense you took in.
glassjester
Well-known member
And... since when do we define murder based on the presence or absence of a soul?
Ah, my mistake...I think it was the cow wearing earrings that threw me. :chuckle:
Since the day we decided burning sticks isn't murder :doh:
Nice inclusion of "baiting" and "pointless". Gives you a two to one subjective catch-all avoidance shield.
Yes I do... because it's question begging. As it goes: We don't know at what point of development to assign a value to the unborn thus we must, by default, assign value at conception. ("error in favor of life")
Though, in effect: the unborn retain value (conclusion) because we're required to place defacto value (supra) upon them (premise)....TH's premise constitutes evidence for his conclusion, a text-book case.
He's crafty because he hides his conclusion behind a veil of "reasoning" ...though, commits the bland fallacy nonetheless.
That's not really true though. Value is never actually determined as it relates to the point of vestment. He tries a clever bit with the de facto, but you could as purposely argue that laws against murder are de facto support for the Ten Commandment prohibition.
We don't protect the unborn from conception because we assume vestment and the presence of value. We protect them because a) we recognize that whenever vestment of right occurs we have no right to abrogate it and b) the chance for that vestment absent any self-authenticating standard exists as fully in each moment as not. Meaning that if we proceed in law to affirm the right to act we as likely write an unjust law that accomplishes what we have no right to as a just one that affirms what we may do. The only means we have to protect ourselves from doing that which we are not entitled to do is to refrain.
Now the thing that quip doesn't discuss, the thing no one objecting likes to discuss, is that unlike the argument presented they assign an arbitrary point of value themselves, be it the Roe standard or some other, and that from that point forward they are in no part different from the fellow standing just behind their chronological point, objecting.
My argument doesn't do that.
Rather, reason has a way of revealing. It is itself, approachable by the same means established and the only other consequential revelation is found in opposition to it.
I only really came back to the active side of things because of this line. There's no fallacy attaching. I noted the assumptive grab at that in my opening.
I also noted that Quip is simply one of those fellows in line, only he's unhappy because the point fails to stop with him. So he uses "in effect" as though it signifies. The fellow jumping off a skyscraper flew, if effect, for a bit. But he really didn't fly. Neither, reasonably, does quips' objection, supra.
^ This ... with the exception of rape, both parents bear equal responsibility for the pregnancy.
Yeah, 50%. Or 30, or 10.
Usually 0
Never 100.
Women can't take sole accountability for anything.
And you wonder why the Bible makes children and women commensurate
:yawn: Despite your ever present grudge towards women, they are not 100% responsible for pregnancy as they didn't get pregnant all on their own. Yep. In the case of consensual sex, it's 50% ... not 100%. Never has been, never will be. Guess what ... in real life, where it matters, the courts agree with me ... they hold fathers liable.
Through history, they were simply known as illegitimate sons. That was back when women were more aware of the fact that they are accountable for themselves, including their womb.
Now you all want to run after men and throw burdens on them- this society is rigged to labor and harass men for your success, pretending as if women contribute something other than their own image.
The only purpose God created women for, they are incapable of doing. Doesn't that just make you feel warm and cozy
Last edited:
Yeah, 50%. Or 30, or 10.
Usually 0
Never 100.
Women can't take sole accountability for anything.
And you wonder why the Bible makes children and women commensurate
:yawn: Despite your ever present grudge towards women, they are not 100% responsible for pregnancy as they didn't get pregnant all on their own. Yep. In the case of consensual sex, it's 50% ... not 100%. Never has been, never will be. Guess what ... in real life, where it matters, the courts agree with me ... they hold fathers liable.
Ah ... and that is what really bothers you. Women having the right to say yes or no in regards to having sex. I couldn't care less about what you claim a "woman's purpose" to be ... and neither does our legal system.
My goal is to see ALL men and women held responsible for the children they WILLFULLY created. Together. Giving birth. Men and women have the same option IF they truly do not feel like being parents. Abstinence OR surgery (as in vasectomy or tubal ligation).
You either give men 50% of women's autonomy or you take 100% accountability. If you don't want the child, abort them, but don't go trying to burden the father when you all have the audacity to suppose authority over life and death.
And
Of course a woman would care less about their purpose- they've done that for a century now and so long as they aren't the one's suffering for what they have, that's not going to change.
The 'legal system' is something you will always fall back on whenever reality hits you, as that is the exact thing I mean by everything I've stated
You need to be reminded of your role ... as dictator of ... yourself.
The reason such is not discussed is primarily because the issue is patently necessary. It simply doesn't warrant a specific debate. How else are rules, rights and boundaries levied if not collectively agreed upon, arbitrarily so?
The devil's clearly in the details, so to speak, or rather the particular circumstances pursuant to the idealized reverence for life ; circumstance first to be discerned in relation to life writ large. (Ex. self-defense)... not the reverse. Your argument is specifically contrived to circumvent by preemption the very circumstances involving and defining abortion.
I'm not saying this in defense of abortion per se, but rather in objection to your specific line of reasoning. It's fallacious, disingenuous, while - as exposed - no less arbitrary a position.
In the spirit of due diligence...your position falls intentionally and abysmally short.
There's a reason why 90% of the homeless are men, 67% of divorcees are men, 82% of all custody losses are to men, more women in college than men, and more male prisoners than men.
It has every single thing to do with the law. All of it- why don't you brush up on it sometime, and eventually realize the atrocity of what 'equality' really means on a legal paper pertaining to your protected rights
If anything, it's a reminder of why not to have respect for your perpetuated nonsense.