NationStates

Sundiata wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
I'm well aware you're not referring to scripture. That's why I advised you to read the scripture.

If you're going to keep bringing religious arguments to the table, expect to be picked up on them.

As for whether I understand the books or not, that's debatable. But we're not having that debate - we're addressing your bad religious arguments on the topic of abortion and any other religious hijack you decide you have to follow.

If you want to discuss whether I understand the books or not, start a thread about it.

I'm not making religious arguments; it's irrelevant that you're raising the subject of scripture.

And everyone laughed, stop lying.

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I'm not making religious arguments; it's irrelevant that you're raising the subject of scripture.

And everyone laughed, stop lying.

While I am Pro-Life, religion is not the subject.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:And everyone laughed, stop lying.

While I am Pro-Life, religion is not the subject.

But you keep basing your Pro-Life arguments on what you think The Bible says.

Vassenor wrote:

Sundiata wrote:While I am Pro-Life, religion is not the subject.

But you keep basing your Pro-Life arguments on what you think The Bible says.

I've not mentioned or referred to the Bible but you who disagree with me have.

As long as murder of the unborn is legal I stand with the Army of God.

Sundiata wrote:I'm not making religious arguments; it's irrelevant that you're raising the subject of scripture.

A lot of your position in this regard is based on religion, denials of that are asinine.

Temple State wrote:As long as murder of the unborn is legal I stand with the Army of God.

So why should a fetus have rights we extend to no other person?

Vassenor wrote:

Temple State wrote:As long as murder of the unborn is legal I stand with the Army of God.

So why should a fetus have rights we extend to no other person?

Why should I respond to straw men?

Temple State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So why should a fetus have rights we extend to no other person?

Why should I respond to straw men?

How is that a strawman?

Temple State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So why should a fetus have rights we extend to no other person?

Why should I respond to straw men?

Outlawing abortion requires granting the fetus the right to make use of another's body without their consent, a right extended to no other person.

Temple State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So why should a fetus have rights we extend to no other person?

Why should I respond to straw men?

It isn't a strawman, what Vass mentioned is an implicit aspect of what you are advocating, so...what says you?

Sundiata wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
I'm well aware you're not referring to scripture. That's why I advised you to read the scripture.

If you're going to keep bringing religious arguments to the table, expect to be picked up on them.

As for whether I understand the books or not, that's debatable. But we're not having that debate - we're addressing your bad religious arguments on the topic of abortion and any other religious hijack you decide you have to follow.

If you want to discuss whether I understand the books or not, start a thread about it.

I'm not making religious arguments; it's irrelevant that you're raising the subject of scripture.

This wasn't true the last time you said it, either.

Vassenor wrote:

Temple State wrote:
Why should I respond to straw men?

Outlawing abortion requires granting the fetus the right to make use of another's body without their consent, a right extended to no other person.

Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.

Temple State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Outlawing abortion requires granting the fetus the right to make use of another's body without their consent, a right extended to no other person.

Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.

So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.

Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.

Temple State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So why should a fetus have rights we extend to no other person?

Why should I respond to straw men?

A 'strawman' fallacy would be an argument presented that offered an alternate version of your argument that was easier to argue against. It's a form of 'red herring' argument, it avoids arguing the point by presenting an alternate (easier) point.

What Vassenor said wasn't a strawman or even a red herring - you made a claim about 'murder of the unborn' and Vass pointed out that the law does not allow you to force another person to use their body to keep another body alive under any other circumstances - even if it kills that other person.

If you're going to argue that women should be allowed to be forced to contribute their bodies against their will, you really need to explain why - because our laws literally do not allow it in ANY other circumstances. ANd it's not considered murder in any of those other circumstances, either.

Temple State wrote:Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.

Surely this 'Brave New World' vision is what you are arguing for? No abortions. Isn't that the goal?

Temple State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:Outlawing abortion requires granting the fetus the right to make use of another's body without their consent, a right extended to no other person.

Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.

A non-response. You might as well have said nothing at all, as this does precisely zero in terms of addressing what was asked.

Temple State wrote:As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.

Pregnancy as punishment again.

Temple State wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Outlawing abortion requires granting the fetus the right to make use of another's body without their consent, a right extended to no other person.

Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.

And you have the gall to accuse others of strawmen.

Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state

Which can be advocated for without banning abortions in any way whatsoever, you just need to be more imaginative.

it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.

Your logic is shit, for the reason stated above.

I have also provided non-alcoholic strawberry daiquiris for those fearing liver failure due to participation in the ‘Pregnancy as Punishment’ drinking game.

If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?

Temple State wrote:If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?

Do you have an argument that isn't just a slippery slope fallacy in action?

Kowani wrote:SCOTUS to hear both challenges to Texas' six-week abortion ban on November 1st, will not block the ban in the meantime

I have a feeling they will uphold the ability to ban abortion up to 6 weeks but declare the enforcement and 10k bribe unconstitutional.

That gives them the best option. They get to undermine Roe while keeping it somewhat there while protecting the rest of the constitution and rule of law and preventing democrat anger in time for 2022

Temple State wrote:If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?

What does a fetus get more rights than any other person?

Thermodolia wrote:

Kowani wrote:SCOTUS to hear both challenges to Texas' six-week abortion ban on November 1st, will not block the ban in the meantime

I have a feeling they will uphold the ability to ban abortion up to 6 weeks but declare the enforcement and 10k bribe unconstitutional.

That gives them the best option. They get to undermine Roe while keeping it somewhat there while protecting the rest of the constitution and rule of law and preventing democrat anger in time for 2022

Banning abortion after six weeks means you’ve outlawed it. Most women don’t know that are pregnant at six weeks.

San Lumen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I have a feeling they will uphold the ability to ban abortion up to 6 weeks but declare the enforcement and 10k bribe unconstitutional.

That gives them the best option. They get to undermine Roe while keeping it somewhat there while protecting the rest of the constitution and rule of law and preventing democrat anger in time for 2022

Banning abortion after six weeks means you’ve outlawed it. Most women don’t know that are pregnant at six weeks.

It’s a technicality but yes. They, meaning the court, wants to undermine Roe not overturn it.