ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

It’s one thing to be against someone making a certain decision and another to be against them having the option to make that decision in the first place.

It's one thing to be against someone robbing a bank, and another to be against them having the option to rob a bank in the first place.

It's one thing to be against someone using assaulting a helpless senior citizen, and another to be against them having the option to assault a helpless senior citizen in the first place.

Not comparable.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

It’s one thing to be against someone making a certain decision and another to be against them having the option to make that decision in the first place.

It's one thing to be against someone robbing a bank, and another to be against them having the option to rob a bank in the first place.

It's one thing to be against someone using assaulting a helpless senior citizen, and another to be against them having the option to assault a helpless senior citizen in the first place.

Not comparable.

I think what MrCoo1 is expressing is the essential liberal attitude — being opposed to what somebody wants to do doesn't mean you need to use force (e.g. government) to prevent them from doing it.

I think what Dalai is saying is that, despite your claim to liberal values, you don't take a liberal stance on robbing banks or hurting old people. This is to point out that nobody takes a liberal stance on all issues, and that some things should be illegal.

Of course, I disagree with Dalai because I am okay with having a liberal stance on killing nonpeople. It's weird that he'd consider such an argument to be convincing. But technically, faerwin, it was a valid comparison: liberal stance contrasted with liberal stance.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

The bottom line is that it isn't alive.

I had this fantasy while reading this pop up in my mind of you using that argument against a mother that just had a miscarriage.

"don't worry, it wasn't alive anyway".

Peace,

-Boem-

Losing the potential to a baby, even if it wasn't alive is different.

It's a psychological thing.

Still, a fetus isn't a human until it can survive on its own in the outside. It's not alive until it can react to stimuli.

I already stated previously i understand the sophistry and mental gymnastics involved.

When the women wants it, it's called a "baby" and no longer "potential life" and its a tragedy.

When it's an accident and the women doesn't want it it's called a fetus and "potential life" and we should respect her sovereignity above the "potential life" even when she is not in danger.

In the first case the tragedy is life being lost and in the second the tragedy is life being formed.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

faerwin wrote:

As much as I'd like to see social workers that help planned parenthood and all, the truth is, that stuff take times.

Time from discovery of pregnancy to finding a social worker.
Time for the social worker to meet and discuss with you.
Time for you to make talk with the concerned person(s).
Time to make an enlightened decision.

It can takes a few weeks.

For many metropolitan locales, the time from deciding to seek a consultation with a social worker to talking with them can happen in a few days. I've seen it happen within a single day.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

It’s one thing to be against someone making a certain decision and another to be against them having the option to make that decision in the first place.

It's one thing to be against someone robbing a bank, and another to be against them having the option to rob a bank in the first place.

It's one thing to be against someone using assaulting a helpless senior citizen, and another to be against them having the option to assault a helpless senior citizen in the first place.

Not comparable.

You are correct - the "helpless" senior citizen is less helpless than the unborn baby. The senior can yell out for help, possibly use a gun in self defense, and will have the option of a law enforcement to investigate and prosecute her attacker. The unborn baby being murdered isn't comparable in that sense.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Of course, I disagree with Dalai because I am okay with having a liberal stance on killing nonpeople.

I don't view unborn babies as non-people. To my thinking, the future will provide a workable solution where the unborn baby is easily removed and kept alive with a procedure no more invasive than the current killing procedures are.

Just as our thoughts and experiences are more than just a summation of all our electrons, neutrons and protons colliding with the world around us, we are more than just physical bodies and some fancy experience software.

I think that who we are starts at the moment we are created. Two phrases from the bible come to mind - "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" and "Blessed are you among women, and blessed IS the fruit of your womb!" which was stated before Jesus was born.

Defining someone by some future potential is like saying Kennedy wasn't president because he didn't complete his term. Excepting time travelers, we all live in the present, not the past, and not the future. An 8 year old child is not held to the same standards in a crime as an adult, nor do we just consider that 8 year old's life as disposable because they aren't a fully functional adult.

The current thinking about abortion will be viewed by future historians as more abhorrent than slavery.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Yeah, the trip argument is beyond stupid.

George Washington, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler
George Carlin, Robin Williams, Charles Manson

Puh-lease.

If you can look at the names and judge after their input has been made - sure, it's not important. When you are essentially randomly culling 33% of the lives in the developed world, it becomes important.

If you don't believe in evolution, then there's no worries. If you do, pretending that percentage of loss isn't going to severe effects, than I suggest some remedial math is in order.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I don't view unborn babies as non-people.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I don't view unborn babies as non-people.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

I'm sure margaret sanger would be proud of you.

Peace,

-Boem-

I find it amusing that we have men here saying that women should not have access to birth control or abortion. That the withdrawal method of birth control is 100% effective. Sorry folks but going back 50 or 60 years ago is not going to happen and it would not be a good thing if it did happen.