RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again

RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 10:51:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. This is incorrect Missouri and South Dakota. Mississippi is probably next. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/mo-lawmakers-answer-the-q_n_716984.html

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 10:53:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan I know Lucy, but the money becomes interchangeable. The federal dollars go to pay for other things, leaving other money open to provide the services.It's word play and dollar shuffling at best. So you oppose funding your local hospital? Why do you prefer State General or St. Stupid's rather than Planned Parenthood? Their accounting works the exact same way. I know. We sell Electronic Health Record and Practice Management Systems.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 10:55:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Freedom and liberty do not constitute or infer a right to commit murder. I'm the first person to stand up for individual rights, but there comes a point when the "it's my body" defense falls flat on the fact you're killing another one. It's not murder. Only in the Crazy Religious Extremist framing of "Pro-lifers" would anyone consider it murder. Don't you know that newborns don't even have souls until they're between 6 and 12 months old? It's not murder if they don't have a soul. Go ahead, falsify that claim.

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 10:56:16 AM)
when it relies on me and my body to survive, you had better bet, its rights do not trump mine. once its viable... different rules may apply, until then your feelings do not overrule my rights.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 10:56:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan I know Lucy, but the money becomes interchangeable. The federal dollars go to pay for other things, leaving other money open to provide the services.It's word play and dollar shuffling at best. So you oppose funding your local hospital? Why do you prefer State General or St. Stupid's rather than Planned Parenthood? Their accounting works the exact same way. I know. We sell Electronic Health Record and Practice Management Systems. I didn't say I opposed funding anything. I said, I'm on the fence for these services. Like I said many times as well, when it comes to planned parenthood, which is more important, losing 3% or maintaining 97%. This should have been a fast reply, cause I gotta run. Later.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 10:59:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic when it relies on me and my body to survive, you had better bet, its rights do not trump mine. once its viable... different rules may apply, until then your feelings do not overrule my rights. When it relies on you and your body to survive, it is your property and you can do whatever the fuck you want with it. That's called FREEDOM. And that's called PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. Just like no-one is going to tell YOU WHAT TO DO, the expect you to have the common decency and good sense to keep any crazy extremist religious beliefs to the contrary of Freedom and Private Property Rights to yourself...

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 11:34:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic when it relies on me and my body to survive, you had better bet, its rights do not trump mine. once its viable... different rules may apply, until then your feelings do not overrule my rights. When it relies on you and your body to survive, it is your property and you can do whatever the fuck you want with it. That's called FREEDOM. And that's called PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. Just like no-one is going to tell YOU WHAT TO DO, the expect you to have the common decency and good sense to keep any crazy extremist religious beliefs to the contrary of Freedom and Private Property Rights to yourself... My point of losing support is viability. That also is a point that will prove to be a moving target over time. That means your "freedom" is also a moving target because when we reach the point that the fetus can survive outside the womb, it is undeniably murder. It has nothing to do with private property rights. If you want to argue that stupid point, go outside and shoot your dogs in front of someone who cares. Animal abuse is a felony. Just fyi. Or hell, go outside to your pregnant dog and rip the fetuses out and kill them in front of someone who cares. I'm willing to take bets on how long it takes law enforcement to arrive. This topic brings out fanatics on both sides. Kind of like... you. I can't decide when I read your posts if your head is about to explode or you're cumming all over yourself at the delight in raving against the right, yet again.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:14:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic when it relies on me and my body to survive, you had better bet, its rights do not trump mine. once its viable... different rules may apply, until then your feelings do not overrule my rights. When it relies on you and your body to survive, it is your property and you can do whatever the fuck you want with it. That's called FREEDOM. And that's called PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. Just like no-one is going to tell YOU WHAT TO DO, the expect you to have the common decency and good sense to keep any crazy extremist religious beliefs to the contrary of Freedom and Private Property Rights to yourself... My point of losing support is viability. That also is a point that will prove to be a moving target over time. That means your "freedom" is also a moving target because when we reach the point that the fetus can survive outside the womb, it is undeniably murder. It has nothing to do with private property rights. If you want to argue that stupid point, go outside and shoot your dogs in front of someone who cares. Animal abuse is a felony. Just fyi. Or hell, go outside to your pregnant dog and rip the fetuses out and kill them in front of someone who cares. I'm willing to take bets on how long it takes law enforcement to arrive. This topic brings out fanatics on both sides. Kind of like... you. I can't decide when I read your posts if your head is about to explode or you're cumming all over yourself at the delight in raving against the right, yet again. It's not murder if they don't have a soul, is it? Whether they're viable is irrelevant. The distinction is the soul. Without the soul, there is no moral issue. And that soul doesn't get implanted for like a year.

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:17:23 PM)
you take any pregnant female and rip out her fetus and shoot it you deserve to die animals will eat their young, .. wheres the disconnect...REALLY!!!!!

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:20:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you take any pregnant female and rip out her fetus and shoot it you deserve to die animals will eat their young, .. wheres the disconnect...REALLY!!!!! The disconnect is screaming private property rights and claiming you can do anything you want. Re-farley. It is a moronic argument easily put aside by a simple example.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:20:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. This is incorrect Missouri and South Dakota. Mississippi is probably next. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/mo-lawmakers-answer-the-q_n_716984.html And when precisely were these laws challenged and upheld by the courts?

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:22:48 PM)
So let me get this right, you're insisting that it's ok to kill anyone less than a year old because of... a soul you say isn't implanted for "like" a year? Gotcha. When you reach a point of rationality, come talk to me.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:24:24 PM)
I suppose you didn't read the article. 2008 Why bother insisting on me providing you something if you're going to ignore it in the first place?

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:32:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you take any pregnant female and rip out her fetus and shoot it you deserve to die animals will eat their young, .. wheres the disconnect...REALLY!!!!! The disconnect is screaming private property rights and claiming you can do anything you want. Re-farley. It is a moronic argument easily put aside by a simple example. So you prefer the alternative? Pregnant Woman are property of the State and must take their vitamins as ordered, and not get an abortion, because of the State's Interest in her fetus? Personally, if it's slavery or freedom, I choose freedom every single time.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan So let me get this right, you're insisting that it's ok to kill anyone less than a year old because of... a soul you say isn't implanted for "like" a year? Gotcha. When you reach a point of rationality, come talk to me. I'm saying that for the crazy religious nuts, their motivation is that there's a soul which needs to be saved and until it's baptized into grace that whatever means necessary are appropriate to ensure that it will be baptized into grace. Then it can die and go to heaven. Don't ask me about their logic, but that's it. So, as a "thought experiment", I challenge their crazy religious hypothesis with a crazier one. Specifically, ( riffing off of the Venture Brothers ) that babies don't get souls until they're a year old, and therefore their argument is irrelevant. I see now that that lesson may have been too subtle for the most casual of observers and apologize to anyone who didn't get the fucking point.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:36:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you take any pregnant female and rip out her fetus and shoot it you deserve to die animals will eat their young, .. wheres the disconnect...REALLY!!!!! The disconnect is screaming private property rights and claiming you can do anything you want. Re-farley. It is a moronic argument easily put aside by a simple example. So you prefer the alternative? Pregnant Woman are property of the State and must take their vitamins as ordered, and not get an abortion, because of the State's Interest in her fetus? Personally, if it's slavery or freedom, I choose freedom every single time. I choose freedom every time too. The issue is when a baby or fetus if you want to call it that, deserves freedom as well. The only rational point I can cling to in the entire debate is when it can live outside the womb. At that point, you're not choosing to end the existence of a group of cells, but what is a life whether you're present or not.

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:39:06 PM)
GAH

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:40:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan I choose freedom every time too. The issue is when a baby or fetus if you want to call it that, deserves freedom as well. The only rational point I can cling to in the entire debate is when it can live outside the womb. At that point, you're not choosing to end the existence of a group of cells, but what is a life whether you're present or not. Well, sure, every spark of life deserves its chance in the cold, heartless world. But, the reality is. Not every spark of life gets out of the gate. Tragic things occur. Early-stage miscarriages, Developing fetuses without a brain, or with one underdeveloped they can never learn to go to the bathroom. Children and Mothers dying in childbirth.... It can be a shitty fucking world. You're not going to make it any better by suggesting to someone who's going to have a baby who will never learn to wipe their own ass, or one which they are emotionally or financially unable to provide for that YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THEY DO, and they shouldn't do what they think is best for them. Making everyone who gets an abortion or provides needed medical services a criminal isn't the way to help anyone.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:43:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan I suppose you didn't read the article. 2008 Why bother insisting on me providing you something if you're going to ignore it in the first place? The article says a symbolc wording was included in a law. It says nothing about it being legally challenged which it hasn't been since the way it was done does not actually change the legal definition of human life (if it had abortion would be murder in MI and SD and that would have been challenged).

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:49:12 PM)
I understand the exceptions, and have no issue with them. What I have issue with is the stance that post-viability, one should have the option to arbitrarily terminate a life. Viability is currently defined around 23 weeks - sue me if I'm off a week or two in either direction, but it is near there if not there. That's where my support for the "it's my body" crowd ends. It's where I understand there may be complications that require an abortion later. Honestly, if you've ever watched the process on sonograms, it's hard not to form that belief at a much earlier stage.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875