NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I have, I don't like her or her opinions but I don't hate her. Everyone's good at a human level.

What does that even mean?

Not only that, but every sperm is sacred!

no, i wouldn't say people like shitler or trump or pol pot are good people, at any level

perhaps if they're the only people remaining, most likely not even then

Neanderthaland wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:What does that even mean?

Not only that, but every sperm is sacred!

And if a single sperm is wasted…

Michel Meilleur wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:From what I can tell people in this thread are doing the former. A fetus is not a person and so has no personhood. Not that either of those matter in an abortion debate.

A fetus is a person because he is an human. That he is incapable of recognizing himself as a person, which is the concept of personhood, doesn't make him less of a person nor does it makes him not human. A lot of peoples on this thread are doing the later and suspiciously aping Nazi rhetoric in the process which is quite saddening and honestly suspicious.

Skin cells are people because they're human.

Every time your scratch an itch you're committing genocide and should be held responsible by the law.

Arlenton wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Yeah, its just dumb that Republicans have waged a decades long battle and violated a bunch of democratic norms to overturn one supreme court decision that they didn't like.

Oh there's more than one. And it is clearly not strategically dumb in any sense, as it is pretty clear that it is working. The idea is to end the legacy of past liberal activist makeups of the court, particularly of the 1950s-60s. Nominating strictly conservatives and originalists, to both the SCOTUS and lower courts, and block any liberal activists is the best way to go about this.

You mean Republican activist judges all slammed in by Trump in the last four years.

Sundiata wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:An absolutely meaningless statement.

Society does not do enough for women.

Don't you mean to?

Sundiata wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:Doesn't answer why the fetus should be able to highjack a woman's body. You can believe something is morally wrong, that doesn't give you the right to deny other people the ability to do it.

It absolutely does if I'm right.

But you're not, so there's that.

Necroghastia wrote:

Michel Meilleur wrote:I'm denying another human's humanity by... Saying that personhood and its nebulous definition isn't enough to deny someone's humanity?
Quite the take you have, I sure would love to hear your reasoning because I ain't getting it lmfao

Michel Meilleur wrote:A toddler has yet to gain personhood. A mentally deficient child has yet to gain personhood..

A person needs to be born. It's not a person before birth.

Even if it were, no person has the right to the body of another person against that second person's will.

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I have, I don't like her or her opinions but I don't hate her. Everyone's good at a human level.

What does that even mean?

Our common humanity is good.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:What does that even mean?

Our common humanity is good.

And what does that mean?

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I have, I don't like her or her opinions but I don't hate her. Everyone's good at a human level.

What does that even mean?

Absolutely nothing. Obfuscation to distract from the point that there is no point.

New haven america wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Our common humanity is good.

And what does that mean?

All human beings are of equal worth whether they are an adult, a zygote, or anything in between.

Sundiata wrote:

New haven america wrote:And what does that mean?

All human beings are of equal worth whether they are an adult, a zygote, or anything in between.

What does that have to do with "goodness?"

Necroghastia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:All human beings are of equal worth whether they are an adult, a zygote, or anything in between.

What does that have to do with "goodness?"

It's one of those things that is good about humanity.

Necroghastia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:All human beings are of equal worth whether they are an adult, a zygote, or anything in between.

What does that have to do with "goodness?"

More importantly what does it have to do with abortion.

Neutraligon wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:What does that have to do with "goodness?"

More importantly what does it have to do with abortion.

Because we have equal rights and good nature we shouldn't permit it.

Sundiata wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:More importantly what does it have to do with abortion.

Because we have equal rights and good nature we shouldn't permit it.

We have equal rights and so should allow it because to do otherwise would be to give fetus rights over the mother, thus making them not equal. Well that and feti objectively do not have equal rights to born adults.

Sundiata wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:More importantly what does it have to do with abortion.

Because we have equal rights and good nature we shouldn't permit it.

We don’t all have equal rights.

Sundiata wrote:

New haven america wrote:And what does that mean?

All human beings are of equal worth whether they are an adult, a zygote, or anything in between.

The fundamental problem here is you are incapable of making this case in a way that non-believers or people of different spiritual practices can accept. To people who aren’t necessarily firmly committed to strict Abrahamic doctrines of human exceptionalism, saying a zygote is of equal worth to an adult either just sounds completely detached from reality, or implies that killing amoebas might also be another form of murder (which is really just a generous way of saying the first thing). The whole thing is premised on acceptance of very specific religious ideas around ensoulment that have no empirical basis so far— so if you want to force non-believers to accept those ideas in this case, you’re saying you don’t really believe in religious pluralism at all, and that non-believers should be forced to politically comply with your faith’s moral doctrines regardless of scientific consensus, medical evidence, their own actual faith or lack thereof, etc. Now if you actually feel that way, great, make the case for a theocracy on its own terms, but you’ll have to stop pretending abortion is just a singular moral issue or that you’re willing to tolerate living alongside unbelievers.

Sundiata wrote:

New haven america wrote:And what does that mean?

All human beings are of equal worth whether they are an adult, a zygote, or anything in between.

You're in a burning building with Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Rosa Parks.
You have enough time to save one person, who do you save?

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:All human beings are of equal worth whether they are an adult, a zygote, or anything in between.

You're in a burning building with Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Rosa Parks.
You have enough time to save one person, who do you save?

Myself

Great Algerstonia wrote:

Genivaria wrote:You're in a burning building with Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Rosa Parks.
You have enough time to save one person, who do you save?

Myself

No see that's a valid answer, just not from Sundiata.

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:All human beings are of equal worth whether they are an adult, a zygote, or anything in between.

You're in a burning building with Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Rosa Parks.
You have enough time to save one person, who do you save?

I don't know what this means, but I would save Rosa Parks.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Genivaria wrote:You're in a burning building with Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Rosa Parks.
You have enough time to save one person, who do you save?

I don't know what this means, but I would save Rosa Parks.

Trying to make the Trolley Problem easier for Sundiata.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Genivaria wrote:You're in a burning building with Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Rosa Parks.
You have enough time to save one person, who do you save?

I don't know what this means, but I would save Rosa Parks.

Rosa Parks is the obvious choice.
the others are two serial killers and a fascist. I mean COME ON.

still I failed to see how that relate to abortion,

Sundiata wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:More importantly what does it have to do with abortion.

Because we have equal rights and good nature we shouldn't permit it.

Unless abortion is legal,we can't really say women are equal to men, because they are not able to control their body like men are able to. they have less rights.

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:All human beings are of equal worth whether they are an adult, a zygote, or anything in between.

You're in a burning building with Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Rosa Parks.
You have enough time to save one person, who do you save?

Who am I to choose?

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:You're in a burning building with Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Rosa Parks.
You have enough time to save one person, who do you save?

Who am I to choose?

God helps those who help themselves. Make a decision yourself.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:You're in a burning building with Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Rosa Parks.
You have enough time to save one person, who do you save?

Who am I to choose?

You....need help with this?