Epicmafia

Pro Lifer Punched

almost 6 years

A Pro-Life man was punched while trying to say babies in front of Planned Parenthood.

Video in link below:

https://www.liveaction.org/news/pro-life-assaulted-abortion-facility/?utm_content=83151986&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-18001922

NYC also recently passed a law allowing abortion up until birth. Is a baby 1 minute before birth less human then 1 minute after?

When should it be considered murder to kill a human?

cozy

almost 6 years

shayneismyname says

SnowPuppy says

Good questions.

It will take me some time to answer them so I will return at a later time.

God Bless you all.

still waiting

doubt you're ever gonna get a reply l o l

shayneismyname

almost 6 years

SnowPuppy says

Good questions.

It will take me some time to answer them so I will return at a later time.

God Bless you all.

still waiting

DonnieDarko

almost 6 years

tyrannosaurusrex says

"Is a baby 1 minute before birth less human then 1 minute after?"

Yes. Problem solved.

ahahahahah you dont actually think this

SteelixMega

almost 6 years

If nobody wanted me 5 minutes ago, does that make me wanted now?

tyrannosaurusrex

almost 6 years

"Is a baby 1 minute before birth less human then 1 minute after?"

Yes. Problem solved.

Megami

almost 6 years

Moldyches says

killing human life is killing human life, regardless of what people think. esp at a certain development stage

and women can still have abortions, regardless of your opinion. cya

deletedalmost 6 years

killing human life is killing human life, regardless of what people think. esp at a certain development stage

VanityPrime

almost 6 years

blacksnakemoan says

what might happen in the future to change how abortion is debated has nothing to do with how abortion should be seen now

and it's a whole different argument because it brings in rights of the mother to her eggs

It isn't a different argument, it's not arguing "This is how we should deal with abortion in the FUTURE!"

It's arguing. "This is how we should deal with abortion now, however these standards we set protect (and maximize) both sides' rights regardless of the circumstances of technology."

There is no such thing as a time-dependent moral "rule" the rule either works across all possible situations or it doesn't, and if it doesn't work then it isn't a "rule."

cozy

almost 6 years

wow i love you too today

Becomeclear

almost 6 years

even you
and so does this thread

Becomeclear

almost 6 years

everyone could use some love from time to time

cozy

almost 6 years

woah what's with the sudden change of heart? you usually hate me ;-;

Becomeclear

almost 6 years

cozy i love you

cozy

almost 6 years

8 hours later n puppy is still not back

deletedalmost 6 years

blacksnakemoan says

what might happen in the future to change how abortion is debated has nothing to do with how abortion should be seen now

and it's a whole different argument because it brings in rights of the mother to her eggs

Agree with the first part, but in regards to the 2nd; Prime only mentioned fertilized eggs/zygotes, which are basically fetus.

blacksnakemoan

almost 6 years

what might happen in the future to change how abortion is debated has nothing to do with how abortion should be seen now

and it's a whole different argument because it brings in rights of the mother to her eggs

Becomeclear

almost 6 years

SnowPuppy says

Good questions.

It will take me some time to answer them so I will return at a later time.

God Bless you all.

VanityPrime

almost 6 years

blacksnakemoan says

You're literally saying abortion is ok in all circumstances where the fetus couldn't survive outside the womb.

The only late term abortions are done for health of the mother or if the child is going to be hugely disabled, ie no brain or vital organs are ruined

If you read the article, the application of this philosophy actually differs extremely from your standard "Pro-choice" viewpoint.

As technology develops, we'd pushing the date back on viability outside of the womb.

Eventually, fertilized eggs will be capable of being captured during insemination, and grow separately within artificial wombs for those who don't want to bring the pregnancy to term.

The woman in this case has no justifiable reason to terminate her pregnancy, and would basically be putting it up for adoption at the moment of fertilization, growing safely and securely without violating the rights of the mother or the zygotes's rights.

blacksnakemoan

almost 6 years

You're literally saying abortion is ok in all circumstances where the fetus couldn't survive outside the womb.

Which is everything prior to 7-8 months.

Which is first and second trimester pregnancies.

Which is normal f*cking abortion practice.

No one goes into an abortion clinic with a 8 month baby and says "changed my mind, kill this kid!"

The only late term abortions are done for health of the mother or if the child is going to be hugely disabled, ie no brain or vital organs are ruined

VanityPrime

almost 6 years

blacksnakemoan says

jesus f*cking christ it took you how many pages of ignoring everything i said to admit that what i was saying is exactly what you agreed with

blacksnakemoan, your difficulty in understanding how a formal argument works is why you're having difficulty comprehending what I've said.

blacksnakemoan

almost 6 years

VanityPrime says

blacksnakemoan says

Read the article I linked, it'll explain the finer points.

Basically, if it's capable of surviving outside the womb, you can't kill it, if it isn't, then you can safely abort it, because no alternative exists.

This preserves both criteria without sacrificing either, thus allowing for the preservation of rights to the mentally challenged and comatose without compromising the rights of animals.

You would know this if you read literally any of the articles I attached to my posts. However I'll try to condense it into as few words as possible.

TL;DR Yes, however not always.

jesus f*cking christ it took you how many pages of ignoring everything i said to admit that what i was saying is exactly what you agreed with

Becomeclear

almost 6 years

Well, a matter of taste and opinion I guess.
carry on

VanityPrime

almost 6 years

Becomeclear says

could you stop making word soup out of ideas.
Use the language proper, ideas are to be expressed sharply, with cutting edge precision.

But then maybe its just me who likes it that way because i'm used to math

Language is sharp and precise, that's why you shouldn't sacrifice a word unless you have to.

I don't think any of the words I'm using require anything higher than a high school degree, and if I'm utilizing a concept or words that the average person may not understand, I provide citation or a link that can explain it. However when it comes to ethics some words have very particular meanings like "duty" and "obligation" which if you aren't familiar with these terms you aren't going to have a productive conversation.

Also, it's "Use the language properly*"

Becomeclear

almost 6 years

VanityPrime says

Becomeclear says

The answer to both questions should take no time at all mate

Well, when your source material is the bible, it's very hard trying to actually construct a coherent moral philosophy.

You know...because it's the bible.

could you stop making word soup out of ideas.
Use the language proper, ideas are to be expressed sharply, with cutting edge precision.

But then maybe its just me who likes it that way because i'm used to math

Myx

almost 6 years

^ i ugly giggled