NationStates

Fauzjhia wrote:...

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.

Unless they're kids at least.

Stellar Colonies wrote:

Fauzjhia wrote:...

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.

Unless they're kids at least.

even kids deserve to have some rights to choose.

Fauzjhia wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:Unless they're kids at least.

even kids deserve to have some rights to choose.

Indeed...if bodily autonomy is eroded further by Roe vs. Wade getting thrown out, it'll be harder to end the ethical travesty afflicting them as well.

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Who am I to choose?

You....need help with this?

Frowns in Eduard Benes.

Stellar Colonies wrote:

Fauzjhia wrote:
even kids deserve to have some rights to choose.

Indeed...if bodily autonomy is eroded further by Roe vs. Wade getting thrown out, it'll be harder to end the ethical travesty afflicting them as well.

Indeed. Bodily autonomy is absolute and must remain so!

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Who am I to choose?

You....need help with this?

I don't think anyone should be forced to choose in a situation like that.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:You....need help with this?

I don't think anyone should be forced to choose in a situation like that.

congrats, you all burn to death

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.

Your original statement was "everyone's good at a human level", what you just said isn't related to that, which makes me suspect you knew it was an empty phrase all along and are now trying to somehow salvage it.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I don't think anyone should be forced to choose in a situation like that.

congrats, you all burn to death

I mean...they already said that if the choice was between one person and the entire planet where they would have to press a button to choose the one person (ie unless the button is pressed the planet is destroyed) they would not press that button.

The New California Republic wrote:

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

Your original statement was "everyone's good at a human level", what you just said isn't related to that, which makes me suspect you knew it was an empty phrase all along and are now trying to somehow salvage it.

I wasn't specific enough at first.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:You....need help with this?

I don't think anyone should be forced to choose in a situation like that.

Well it's a good thing you're not currently in that situation.

So pick one, right now.

Are drug lords equal to Rosa Parks or Benito Juarez? Honestly? Methinks not.

New haven america wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I don't think anyone should be forced to choose in a situation like that.

Well it's a good thing you're not currently in that situation.

So pick one, right now.

I actually wouldn't choose one person. We would all unfortunately burn in the hypothetical building.

Imperial Old Mexico wrote:Are drug lords equal to Rosa Parks or Benito Juarez? Honestly? Methinks not.

Equal in what way?

They are superior in terms of wealth. equal in the eyes of the law, lesser in terms of morality.

Member of Opus Dei.....

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:You....need help with this?

I don't think anyone should be forced to choose in a situation like that.

Sometimes life throws up difficult decisions for us. Choosing to do nothing, if that's what you are doing here, is a choice. Do you want to stick with that choice or do you want to rethink it?

Elwher wrote:

Imperial Old Mexico wrote:Are drug lords equal to Rosa Parks or Benito Juarez? Honestly? Methinks not.

Equal in what way?

They are superior in terms of wealth. equal in the eyes of the law, lesser in terms of morality.

Equal in value to society. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Sundiata wrote:

New haven america wrote:Well it's a good thing you're not currently in that situation.

So pick one, right now.

I actually wouldn't choose one person. We would all unfortunately burn in the hypothetical building.

So instead of saving 2/5 people, you're willing to kill everyone through inaction?

You know God frowns upon inaction in times of crisis, right? Your choice isn't as holy as you might wanna think it is.

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I don't think anyone should be forced to choose in a situation like that.

Sometimes life throws up difficult decisions for us. Choosing to do nothing, if that's what you are doing here, is a choice. Do you want to stick with that choice or do you want to rethink it?

I'm sticking with that choice, if I can't save everyone I'm going to at least try.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Your original statement was "everyone's good at a human level", what you just said isn't related to that, which makes me suspect you knew it was an empty phrase all along and are now trying to somehow salvage it.

I wasn't specific enough at first.

Your latter statement is not related to the first. This isn't about being specific, this is about you saying two separate things that actually aren't related to each other and pretending that they are.

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I wasn't specific enough at first.

Your latter statement is not related to the first. This isn't about being specific, this is about you saying two separate things that actually aren't related to each other and pretending that they are.

The premise that people are good is related to our rights, I just didn't make that connection clear.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Sometimes life throws up difficult decisions for us. Choosing to do nothing, if that's what you are doing here, is a choice. Do you want to stick with that choice or do you want to rethink it?

I'm sticking with that choice, if I can't save everyone I'm going to at least try.

Choosing an action that you know ahead of time will fail and result in the deaths of everyone involved really is a very very strange choice to make.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Your latter statement is not related to the first. This isn't about being specific, this is about you saying two separate things that actually aren't related to each other and pretending that they are.

The premise that people are good is related to our rights, I just didn't make that connection clear.

There is no relation between the first statement and second, and doesn't explain the origins of the first, which is what was asked.

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I'm sticking with that choice, if I can't save everyone I'm going to at least try.

Choosing an action that you know ahead of time will fail and result in the deaths of everyone involved really is a very very strange choice to make.

Courage is when you know you'll fail before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Choosing an action that you know ahead of time will fail and result in the deaths of everyone involved really is a very very strange choice to make.

Courage is when you know you'll fail before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what.

And God looks down upon those who are inactive in times of action.

You're actually losing afterlife points by letting everyone die.