Current Events > Why is it important for abortion and gay marriage to be illegal?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8
jborgan 10/16/18 7:46:37 PM #51:	Inferno Dive Dragoon posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... Darklit_Minuet posted... DarkTransient posted... The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal "I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies. If you're going to shitpost, could you at least step up on your main? His main is warned for shitposting. It's all he does. --- http://www.last.fm/user/jborgan <cite>jborgan posted [p:910647340] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darklit_Minuet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. </quote> Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal</quote> "I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies.</quote> If you're going to shitpost, could you at least step up on your main?</quote> His main is warned for shitposting. It's all he does.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 10/16/18 7:46:54 PM #52:	DarkTransient posted... Tmaster148 posted... DarkTransient posted... Tmaster148 posted... DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... Rape, no maximum kek level reached "Sorry you got raped, now have this rape baby you never wanted and the literal hell your body is going to go through for the next 9 months" "You got robbed, we'll lock the robber up for a few years, and kill his offspring." Sounds like you might just be a rape apologist. Yes, a rape apologist that's perfectly fine with punishing the rapist with the death penalty, and simply objects to a third party that wasn't even alive at the time of the rape being put to death over it. You want the rapist to have an offspring. No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Well I wouldn't know now. The whole not being born thing kinda makes it irrelevant. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910647357] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>Rape, no</quote> maximum kek level reached "Sorry you got raped, now have this rape baby you never wanted and the literal hell your body is going to go through for the next 9 months"</quote> "You got robbed, we'll lock the robber up for a few years, and kill his offspring."</quote> Sounds like you might just be a rape apologist.</quote> Yes, a rape apologist that's perfectly fine with punishing the rapist with the death penalty, and simply objects to a third party that wasn't even alive at the time of the rape being put to death over it.</quote> You want the rapist to have an offspring.</quote> No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Well I wouldn't know now. The whole not being born thing kinda makes it irrelevant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbreakable 10/16/18 7:47:44 PM #53:	Unbreakable posted... Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers? No one "pro-life" has answered this yet --- But Wait... there's more <cite>Unbreakable posted [p:910647393] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote>Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers?</quote> No one "pro-life" has answered this yet</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Inferno Dive Dragoon 10/16/18 7:48:03 PM #54:	jborgan posted... Inferno Dive Dragoon posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... Darklit_Minuet posted... DarkTransient posted... The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal "I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies. If you're going to shitpost, could you at least step up on your main? His main is warned for shitposting. It's all he does. Shock of shocks. --- Les aristocrates a la lanterne! Les aristocrates on les pendra! <cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted [p:910647413] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>jborgan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darklit_Minuet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. </quote> Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal</quote> "I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies.</quote> If you're going to shitpost, could you at least step up on your main?</quote> His main is warned for shitposting. It's all he does.</quote> Shock of shocks.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/16/18 7:48:37 PM #55:	Unbreakable posted... Unbreakable posted... Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers? No one "pro-life" has answered this yet I literally answered that before you even asked it. DarkTransient posted... And most of all - I certianly recognize that a ban alone won't solve the issue, and it must be combined with better support for those who do have babies, as well as better access to contraception to reduce the demand in the first place. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910647439] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote>Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers?</quote> No one "pro-life" has answered this yet</quote> I literally answered that before you even asked it. <cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>And most of all - I certianly recognize that a ban alone won't solve the issue, and it must be combined with better support for those who do have babies, as well as better access to contraception to reduce the demand in the first place.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuiaHX 10/16/18 7:48:42 PM #56:	Darklit_Minuet posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... Darklit_Minuet posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... Darklit_Minuet posted... DarkTransient posted... The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal "I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies. If you don't want someone to be in your home, you have every right to kick them out Dude, that scenario would get you put in prison for negligent homicide If you don't want someone in your house, they have to leave your house. Period. In the case of newborns you have to drop them off at an orphanage or fire station, but they have zero right to be in your house against your will Sure. As soon as they are born they can be taken to an orphanage. Consider it part of the eviction process. <cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted [p:910647445] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darklit_Minuet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darklit_Minuet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darklit_Minuet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. </quote> Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal</quote> "I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies.</quote> If you don't want someone to be in your home, you have every right to kick them out</quote> Dude, that scenario would get you put in prison for negligent homicide</quote> If you don't want someone in your house, they have to leave your house. Period. In the case of newborns you have to drop them off at an orphanage or fire station, but they have zero right to be in your house against your will</quote> Sure. As soon as they are born they can be taken to an orphanage. Consider it part of the eviction process.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbreakable 10/16/18 7:50:32 PM #57:	DarkTransient posted... Unbreakable posted... Unbreakable posted... Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers? No one "pro-life" has answered this yet I literally answered that before you even asked it. DarkTransient posted... And most of all - I certianly recognize that a ban alone won't solve the issue, and it must be combined with better support for those who do have babies, as well as better access to contraception to reduce the demand in the first place. Didn't see that, sorry @SageHarpuiaHX --- But Wait... there's more <cite>Unbreakable posted [p:910647552] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote>Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers?</quote> No one "pro-life" has answered this yet</quote> I literally answered that before you even asked it. <cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>And most of all - I certianly recognize that a ban alone won't solve the issue, and it must be combined with better support for those who do have babies, as well as better access to contraception to reduce the demand in the first place.</quote></quote> Didn't see that, sorry @SageHarpuiaHX</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 10/16/18 7:51:18 PM #58:	DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. No it isn't. A woman can shit out that clump of cells into a toilet and nobody else would know. It's still being brewed up. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:910647602] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions.</quote> No it isn't. A woman can shit out that clump of cells into a toilet and nobody else would know. It's still being brewed up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YUHH 10/16/18 7:51:59 PM #59:	YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? @DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? --- https://i.imgtc.com/jUodQdE.jpg Barbecue confederate flags over spare time <cite>YUHH posted [p:910647638] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> @DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuiaHX 10/16/18 7:52:27 PM #60:	Everyone who pays taxes supports these women <cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted [p:910647659] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote>Everyone who pays taxes supports these women</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
jumi 10/16/18 7:52:54 PM #61:	Unbreakable posted... Darklit_Minuet posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... Darklit_Minuet posted... DarkTransient posted... The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal "I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies. If you don't want someone to be in your home, you have every right to kick them out Or kill them if you're in a "stand your ground" state Killing someone who invades your home isn't "stand your ground." It's castle doctrine. --- XBL Gamertag: Rob Thorsman Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/robertvsilvers <cite>jumi posted [p:910647678] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darklit_Minuet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darklit_Minuet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. </quote> Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal</quote> "I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies.</quote> If you don't want someone to be in your home, you have every right to kick them out</quote> Or kill them if you're in a "stand your ground" state</quote> Killing someone who invades your home isn't "stand your ground." It's castle doctrine.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbreakable 10/16/18 7:53:53 PM #62:	jumi posted... Unbreakable posted... Darklit_Minuet posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... Darklit_Minuet posted... DarkTransient posted... The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal "I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies. If you don't want someone to be in your home, you have every right to kick them out Or kill them if you're in a "stand your ground" state Killing someone who invades your home isn't "stand your ground." It's castle doctrine. True. I got that wrong. Replace that in my statement then and it still fits --- But Wait... there's more <cite>Unbreakable posted [p:910647738] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>jumi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darklit_Minuet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darklit_Minuet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. </quote> Exactly. "I do not consent for you to be in my body" is a very good justification, therefore it should be legal</quote> "I do not consent to you being in my home" isn't a good justification for putting a newborn outside to starve, and there's not much difference between these analogies.</quote> If you don't want someone to be in your home, you have every right to kick them out</quote> Or kill them if you're in a "stand your ground" state</quote> Killing someone who invades your home isn't "stand your ground." It's castle doctrine.</quote> True. I got that wrong. Replace that in my statement then and it still fits</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
jborgan 10/16/18 7:55:37 PM #63:	YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him. --- http://www.last.fm/user/jborgan <cite>jborgan posted [p:910647826] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote> Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YUHH 10/16/18 7:56:18 PM #64:	jborgan posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him. I mean I already knew that, he thinks the death penalty should be used for nearly every single crime. I just want to hear his reasoning. --- https://i.imgtc.com/jUodQdE.jpg Barbecue confederate flags over spare time <cite>YUHH posted [p:910647860] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>jborgan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote> Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him.</quote> I mean I already knew that, he thinks the death penalty should be used for nearly every single crime. I just want to hear his reasoning.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 10/16/18 7:56:22 PM #65:	YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. The latter shouldn't be illegal. Abortion isn't murder People disagree with you. <cite>Zikten posted [p:910647867] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. The latter shouldn't be illegal.</quote> Abortion isn't murder</quote> People disagree with you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YUHH 10/16/18 7:57:06 PM #66:	Zikten posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. The latter shouldn't be illegal. Abortion isn't murder People disagree with you. I think Error or Burgess or whoever was on to something when they claimed you derive sexual pleasure from being wrong. --- https://i.imgtc.com/jUodQdE.jpg Barbecue confederate flags over spare time <cite>YUHH posted [p:910647908] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection. The latter shouldn't be illegal.</quote> Abortion isn't murder</quote> People disagree with you.</quote> I think Error or Burgess or whoever was on to something when they claimed you derive sexual pleasure from being wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 10/16/18 7:57:19 PM #67:	Making abortions illegal accomplishes nothing. You'll just be forcing women to force miscarriages on their own. Which despite being risky isn't hard to accomplish. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:910647917] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote>Making abortions illegal accomplishes nothing. You'll just be forcing women to force miscarriages on their own. Which despite being risky isn't hard to accomplish.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 10/16/18 7:57:22 PM #68:	Unbreakable posted... Unbreakable posted... Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers? No one "pro-life" has answered this yet Yes I would pay taxes that support the babies life <cite>Zikten posted [p:910647920] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote>Now, do you people who want to force the mothers to bear children they don't want support aid for those mothers?</quote> No one "pro-life" has answered this yet</quote> Yes I would pay taxes that support the babies life</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbreakable 10/16/18 7:57:48 PM #69:	jborgan posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him. Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell. Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"? --- But Wait... there's more <cite>Unbreakable posted [p:910647951] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>jborgan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote> Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him.</quote> Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell. Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/16/18 7:59:29 PM #70:	Unbreakable posted... jborgan posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him. Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell. Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"? I don't support across-the-board retroactive punishments for any new law (eg. if alcohol was outlawed - which to be clear isn't a law I would support in the first place - I definitely wouldn't say "anyone who ever drank it should be punished"); but when it's a loophole or a propaganda-based law that enables killing people, I absolutely support it. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910648026] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote><cite>jborgan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote> Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him.</quote> Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell. Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"?</quote> I don't support across-the-board retroactive punishments for any new law (eg. if alcohol was outlawed - which to be clear isn't a law I would support in the first place - I definitely wouldn't say "anyone who ever drank it should be punished"); but when it's a loophole or a propaganda-based law that enables killing people, I absolutely support it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YUHH 10/16/18 7:59:58 PM #71:	YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? @DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? --- https://i.imgtc.com/jUodQdE.jpg Barbecue confederate flags over spare time <cite>YUHH posted [p:910648060] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> @DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 10/16/18 8:00:42 PM #72:	DarkTransient posted... Unbreakable posted... jborgan posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him. Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell. Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"? I don't support across-the-board retroactive punishments for any new law (eg. if alcohol was outlawed - which to be clear isn't a law I would support in the first place - I definitely wouldn't say "anyone who ever drank it should be punished"); but when it's a loophole or a propaganda-based law that enables killing people, I absolutely support it. Really it's people like you that give more reason to support abortion. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910648111] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote><cite>jborgan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote> Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him.</quote> Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell. Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"?</quote> I don't support across-the-board retroactive punishments for any new law (eg. if alcohol was outlawed - which to be clear isn't a law I would support in the first place - I definitely wouldn't say "anyone who ever drank it should be punished"); but when it's a loophole or a propaganda-based law that enables killing people, I absolutely support it.</quote> Really it's people like you that give more reason to support abortion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/16/18 8:00:44 PM #73:	YUHH posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? @DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? I'll continue discussing it with you when you stop declaring the people you want to legalize the killing of to be "not human" to justify it. That tactic wasn't valid when the Nazis used it, it wasn't valid when the KKK used it, and it isn't valid when pro-abortionists use it. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910648114] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> @DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote></quote> I'll continue discussing it with you when you stop declaring the people you want to legalize the killing of to be "not human" to justify it. That tactic wasn't valid when the Nazis used it, it wasn't valid when the KKK used it, and it isn't valid when pro-abortionists use it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbreakable 10/16/18 8:02:01 PM #74:	DarkTransient posted... Unbreakable posted... jborgan posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him. Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell. Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"? I don't support across-the-board retroactive punishments for any new law (eg. if alcohol was outlawed - which to be clear isn't a law I would support in the first place - I definitely wouldn't say "anyone who ever drank it should be punished"); but when it's a loophole or a propaganda-based law that enables killing people, I absolutely support it. That's just it though. It's not agreed on whether fetuses are actually people. There is no right or wrong answer legally or scientifically. I doubt anyone getting an abortion actually believes they are killing a human life. --- But Wait... there's more <cite>Unbreakable posted [p:910648196] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote><cite>jborgan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote> Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him.</quote> Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell. Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"?</quote> I don't support across-the-board retroactive punishments for any new law (eg. if alcohol was outlawed - which to be clear isn't a law I would support in the first place - I definitely wouldn't say "anyone who ever drank it should be punished"); but when it's a loophole or a propaganda-based law that enables killing people, I absolutely support it.</quote> That's just it though. It's not agreed on whether fetuses are actually people. There is no right or wrong answer legally or scientifically. I doubt anyone getting an abortion actually believes they are killing a human life.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YUHH 10/16/18 8:02:40 PM #75:	DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? @DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? I'll continue discussing it with you when you stop declaring the people you want to legalize the killing of to be "not human" to justify it. That tactic wasn't valid when the Nazis used it, it wasn't valid when the KKK used it, and it isn't valid when pro-abortionists use it. Because a clump of cells with no consciousness or sense of self isn't a human being. A fetus is a bunch of cells dependent on the host body to live. It cannot feed or sustain itself. It cannot think. It has no personality. It has no consciousness. It is literally a parasite for the majority of its time in the host body. So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will? --- https://i.imgtc.com/jUodQdE.jpg Barbecue confederate flags over spare time <cite>YUHH posted [p:910648232] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> @DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote></quote> I'll continue discussing it with you when you stop declaring the people you want to legalize the killing of to be "not human" to justify it. That tactic wasn't valid when the Nazis used it, it wasn't valid when the KKK used it, and it isn't valid when pro-abortionists use it.</quote> Because a clump of cells with no consciousness or sense of self isn't a human being. A fetus is a bunch of cells dependent on the host body to live. It cannot feed or sustain itself. It cannot think. It has no personality. It has no consciousness. It is literally a parasite for the majority of its time in the host body. So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/16/18 8:02:58 PM #76:	Unbreakable posted... DarkTransient posted... Unbreakable posted... jborgan posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him. Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell. Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"? I don't support across-the-board retroactive punishments for any new law (eg. if alcohol was outlawed - which to be clear isn't a law I would support in the first place - I definitely wouldn't say "anyone who ever drank it should be punished"); but when it's a loophole or a propaganda-based law that enables killing people, I absolutely support it. That's just it though. It's not agreed on whether fetuses are actually people. There is no right or wrong answer legally or scientifically. I doubt anyone getting an abortion actually believes they are killing a human life. It's undeniably alive, and it's undeniably of the human species. Those are literally the only criteria that matter. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910648246] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbreakable posted...</cite> <quote><cite>jborgan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote> Just so you don't end up wasting too much of your time, he's said before that women who get abortions should be retroactively punished. You won't get a reasonable discussion with him.</quote> Is this accurate @DarkTransient ? The idea of retroactive punishment for almost anything is draconian as hell. Like "It's now against the law so anyone who had it when it was legal should now be punished"?</quote> I don't support across-the-board retroactive punishments for any new law (eg. if alcohol was outlawed - which to be clear isn't a law I would support in the first place - I definitely wouldn't say "anyone who ever drank it should be punished"); but when it's a loophole or a propaganda-based law that enables killing people, I absolutely support it.</quote> That's just it though. It's not agreed on whether fetuses are actually people. There is no right or wrong answer legally or scientifically. I doubt anyone getting an abortion actually believes they are killing a human life.</quote> It's undeniably alive, and it's undeniably of the human species. Those are literally the only criteria that matter.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/16/18 8:03:38 PM #77:	YUHH posted... So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will? Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion. Both have the right to life, neither have the right to kill an innocent. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910648272] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote>So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will?</quote> Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion. Both have the right to life, neither have the right to kill an innocent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 10/16/18 8:04:13 PM #78:	Do you clowns think a woman should be charged with manslaughter if she has an accident that causes a miscarriage? --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:910648297] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote>Do you clowns think a woman should be charged with manslaughter if she has an accident that causes a miscarriage?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 10/16/18 8:04:25 PM #79:	YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any? Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will? @DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped? I'll continue discussing it with you when you stop declaring the people you want to legalize the killing of to be "not human" to justify it. That tactic wasn't valid when the Nazis used it, it wasn't valid when the KKK used it, and it isn't valid when pro-abortionists use it. Because a clump of cells with no consciousness or sense of self isn't a human being. A fetus is a bunch of cells dependent on the host body to live. It cannot feed or sustain itself. It cannot think. It has no personality. It has no consciousness. It is literally a parasite for the majority of its time in the host body. So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will? Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too <cite>Zikten posted [p:910648307] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>No, but if they already have one - which they do by the time abortion is considered - there is no reason to punish said offspring for their father's actions. I mean, if your dad went out and raped someone or murdered someone or whatever, should you receive the punishment? Or should he be the only one who receives any?</quote> Why should the mother be punished for a terrible thing that happened to her against her will?</quote> @DarkTransient why do you care more about the rights of a clump of cells than the host body who was raped?</quote></quote> I'll continue discussing it with you when you stop declaring the people you want to legalize the killing of to be "not human" to justify it. That tactic wasn't valid when the Nazis used it, it wasn't valid when the KKK used it, and it isn't valid when pro-abortionists use it.</quote> Because a clump of cells with no consciousness or sense of self isn't a human being. A fetus is a bunch of cells dependent on the host body to live. It cannot feed or sustain itself. It cannot think. It has no personality. It has no consciousness. It is literally a parasite for the majority of its time in the host body. So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will?</quote> Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YUHH 10/16/18 8:04:37 PM #80:	DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will? Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion. You are claiming that a fetus has more of a right to live than a woman has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when she was forcibly raped against her will and made pregnant against her will. --- https://i.imgtc.com/jUodQdE.jpg Barbecue confederate flags over spare time <cite>YUHH posted [p:910648315] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote>So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will?</quote> Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion.</quote> You are claiming that a fetus has more of a right to live than a woman has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when she was forcibly raped against her will and made pregnant against her will.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuiaHX 10/16/18 8:05:00 PM #81:	"I don't have the moral high-ground on baby killing? Well then I'll just invent new terminology and insist it isn't baby killing!" <cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted [p:910648346] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote>"I don't have the moral high-ground on baby killing? Well then I'll just invent new terminology and insist it isn't baby killing!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 10/16/18 8:05:19 PM #82:	DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will? Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion. Both have the right to life, neither have the right to kill an innocent. You're forcing a woman who wasn't given any consent at all to give birth to a child from a man who has essentially ruined her life. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:910648359] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote>So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will?</quote> Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion. Both have the right to life, neither have the right to kill an innocent.</quote> You're forcing a woman who wasn't given any consent at all to give birth to a child from a man who has essentially ruined her life.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 10/16/18 8:06:23 PM #83:	Zikten posted... Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person. It can feel pain. It can feel stress. It can feel hunger. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:910648420] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too </quote> A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person. It can feel pain. It can feel stress. It can feel hunger.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/16/18 8:06:27 PM #84:	YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will? Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion. You are claiming that a fetus has more of a right to live than a woman has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when she was forcibly raped against her will and made pregnant against her will. "What right am I saying the baby should have that the mother shouldn't?" "You're saying the baby should have right A but the mother shouldn't have right B! Doesn't matter that you think both should have right A but neither should have right B, you're still giving the baby more!" --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910648424] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote>So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will?</quote> Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion.</quote> You are claiming that a fetus has more of a right to live than a woman has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when she was forcibly raped against her will and made pregnant against her will.</quote> "What right am I saying the baby should have that the mother shouldn't?" "You're saying the baby should have right A but the mother shouldn't have right B! Doesn't matter that you think both should have right A but neither should have right B, you're still giving the baby more!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SageHarpuiaHX 10/16/18 8:07:00 PM #85:	By the way, the vast majority of abortions are a result of "accidents", rape makes up only a small percentage of abortion. <cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted [p:910648454] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote>By the way, the vast majority of abortions are a result of "accidents", rape makes up only a small percentage of abortion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 10/16/18 8:07:33 PM #86:	SageHarpuiaHX posted... By the way, the vast majority of abortions are a result of "accidents", rape makes up only a small percentage of abortion. Why is accident in quotation marks? --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:910648485] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote>By the way, the vast majority of abortions are a result of "accidents", rape makes up only a small percentage of abortion.</quote> Why is accident in quotation marks?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 10/16/18 8:07:35 PM #87:	Darmik posted... Zikten posted... Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person. I just don't get it. How can you have so much hatred for the first stage of human life? We all were it, once. Everyone has to be it <cite>Zikten posted [p:910648488] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too </quote> A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person.</quote> I just don't get it. How can you have so much hatred for the first stage of human life? We all were it, once. Everyone has to be it</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Learning 10/16/18 8:08:38 PM #88:	Expecting an in-depth answer from an 'activist' who lives in his mother's basement lmao --- Backup Conflict alt for the next week <cite>Learning posted [p:910648533] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote>Expecting an in-depth answer from an 'activist' who lives in his mother's basement lmao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YUHH 10/16/18 8:08:48 PM #89:	DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will? Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion. You are claiming that a fetus has more of a right to live than a woman has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when she was forcibly raped against her will and made pregnant against her will. "What right am I saying the baby should have that the mother shouldn't?" "You're saying the baby should have right A but the mother shouldn't have right B! Doesn't matter that you think both should have right A but neither should have right B, you're still giving the baby more!" I'll break it down real simple for you. Why should a woman, that was forcibly impregnated via a sexual crime, be forced to have offspring from said crime? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of a heinous act that was inflicted on her against her will? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of the physical and emotional trauma she was subject to by a violent criminal? Why should she be forced to be physically altered from a violent sexual assault from another individual she has no choice, consent, or control over? Why should a potential life be more protected than an existing one? --- https://i.imgtc.com/jUodQdE.jpg Barbecue confederate flags over spare time <cite>YUHH posted [p:910648542] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote>So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will?</quote> Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion.</quote> You are claiming that a fetus has more of a right to live than a woman has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when she was forcibly raped against her will and made pregnant against her will.</quote> "What right am I saying the baby should have that the mother shouldn't?" "You're saying the baby should have right A but the mother shouldn't have right B! Doesn't matter that you think both should have right A but neither should have right B, you're still giving the baby more!"</quote> I'll break it down real simple for you. Why should a woman, that was forcibly impregnated via a sexual crime, be forced to have offspring from said crime? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of a heinous act that was inflicted on her against her will? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of the physical and emotional trauma she was subject to by a violent criminal? Why should she be forced to be physically altered from a violent sexual assault from another individual she has no choice, consent, or control over? Why should a potential life be more protected than an existing one?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/16/18 8:08:55 PM #90:	Zikten posted... Darmik posted... Zikten posted... Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person. I just don't get it. How can you have so much hatred for the first stage of human life? We all were it, once. Everyone has to be it Because it's critical to have that twisted view to be pro-abortion. They pick the conclusion first, then go backwards to find (or make up, if need be) reasons to support it. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910648544] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too </quote> A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person.</quote> I just don't get it. How can you have so much hatred for the first stage of human life? We all were it, once. Everyone has to be it</quote> Because it's critical to have that twisted view to be pro-abortion. They pick the conclusion first, then go backwards to find (or make up, if need be) reasons to support it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 10/16/18 8:09:03 PM #91:	Darmik posted... SageHarpuiaHX posted... By the way, the vast majority of abortions are a result of "accidents", rape makes up only a small percentage of abortion. Why is accident in quotation marks? Probably some incel thing believing that women who have sex deserve anything that happens to them. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910648551] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SageHarpuiaHX posted...</cite> <quote>By the way, the vast majority of abortions are a result of "accidents", rape makes up only a small percentage of abortion.</quote> Why is accident in quotation marks?</quote> Probably some incel thing believing that women who have sex deserve anything that happens to them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 10/16/18 8:09:32 PM #92:	Zikten posted... Darmik posted... Zikten posted... Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person. I just don't get it. How can you have so much hatred for the first stage of human life? We all were it, once. Everyone has to be it Who said anything about hatred? I was sperm once too. It was more likely I wouldn't have been born than if I was. Potential life isn't life. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:910648572] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too </quote> A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person.</quote> I just don't get it. How can you have so much hatred for the first stage of human life? We all were it, once. Everyone has to be it</quote> Who said anything about hatred? I was sperm once too. It was more likely I wouldn't have been born than if I was. Potential life isn't life.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbreakable 10/16/18 8:10:03 PM #93:	Zikten posted... Darmik posted... Zikten posted... Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person. I just don't get it. How can you have so much hatred for the first stage of human life? We all were it, once. Everyone has to be it It's not hatred. You really think people who get abortions do it out of malice? --- But Wait... there's more <cite>Unbreakable posted [p:910648600] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>Because it will think if allowed to grow. That makes it alive. I will never understand why people think something is not human just cause of it's age. Is a baby human then? They have next to zero conscisouness too </quote> A baby has an age. A baby doesn't require a host body to develop it into a person.</quote> I just don't get it. How can you have so much hatred for the first stage of human life? We all were it, once. Everyone has to be it</quote> It's not hatred. You really think people who get abortions do it out of malice?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/16/18 8:10:19 PM #94:	YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will? Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion. You are claiming that a fetus has more of a right to live than a woman has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when she was forcibly raped against her will and made pregnant against her will. "What right am I saying the baby should have that the mother shouldn't?" "You're saying the baby should have right A but the mother shouldn't have right B! Doesn't matter that you think both should have right A but neither should have right B, you're still giving the baby more!" I'll break it down real simple for you. Why should a woman, that was forcibly impregnated via a sexual crime, be forced to have offspring from said crime? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of a heinous act that was inflicted on her against her will? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of the physical and emotional trauma she was subject to by a violent criminal? Why should she be forced to be physically altered from a violent sexual assault from another individual she has no choice, consent, or control over? Why should the baby be killed over what a third party did? It doesn't matter what emotional plea you make; you have not yet given any justification for punishing Person B over the actions of Person A, when Person B themself has done nothing wrong. Until you can come up with a solid justification for that, your arguments are utterly irrelevant. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910648611] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote>So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will?</quote> Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion.</quote> You are claiming that a fetus has more of a right to live than a woman has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when she was forcibly raped against her will and made pregnant against her will.</quote> "What right am I saying the baby should have that the mother shouldn't?" "You're saying the baby should have right A but the mother shouldn't have right B! Doesn't matter that you think both should have right A but neither should have right B, you're still giving the baby more!"</quote> I'll break it down real simple for you. Why should a woman, that was forcibly impregnated via a sexual crime, be forced to have offspring from said crime? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of a heinous act that was inflicted on her against her will? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of the physical and emotional trauma she was subject to by a violent criminal? Why should she be forced to be physically altered from a violent sexual assault from another individual she has no choice, consent, or control over?</quote> Why should the baby be killed over what a third party did? It doesn't matter what emotional plea you make; you have not yet given any justification for punishing Person B over the actions of Person A, when Person B themself has done nothing wrong. Until you can come up with a solid justification for that, your arguments are utterly irrelevant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 10/16/18 8:10:31 PM #95:	Let's outlaw male masturbation. Since sperm can is used to make a baby so all sperm that dies from masturbation is killing potential life. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910648621] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote>Let's outlaw male masturbation. Since sperm can is used to make a baby so all sperm that dies from masturbation is killing potential life.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/16/18 8:11:06 PM #96:	Tmaster148 posted... Let's outlaw male masturbation. Since sperm can is used to make a baby so all sperm that dies from masturbation is killing potential life. "Can be used to make one" is not the same thing as "is one". --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910648646] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>Let's outlaw male masturbation. Since sperm can is used to make a baby so all sperm that dies from masturbation is killing potential life.</quote> "Can be used to make one" is not the same thing as "is one".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YUHH 10/16/18 8:11:11 PM #97:	DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... DarkTransient posted... YUHH posted... So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will? Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion. You are claiming that a fetus has more of a right to live than a woman has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when she was forcibly raped against her will and made pregnant against her will. "What right am I saying the baby should have that the mother shouldn't?" "You're saying the baby should have right A but the mother shouldn't have right B! Doesn't matter that you think both should have right A but neither should have right B, you're still giving the baby more!" I'll break it down real simple for you. Why should a woman, that was forcibly impregnated via a sexual crime, be forced to have offspring from said crime? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of a heinous act that was inflicted on her against her will? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of the physical and emotional trauma she was subject to by a violent criminal? Why should she be forced to be physically altered from a violent sexual assault from another individual she has no choice, consent, or control over? Why should the baby be killed over what a third party did? It doesn't matter what emotional plea you make; you have not yet given any justification for punishing Person B over the actions of Person A, when Person B themself has done nothing wrong. Until you can come up with a solid justification for that, your arguments are utterly irrelevant. You're not killing a baby, you're getting rid of a clump of cells. Stop being dishonest. --- https://i.imgtc.com/jUodQdE.jpg Barbecue confederate flags over spare time <cite>YUHH posted [p:910648652] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote>So why should something by definition that is not a conscious human being with a sense of self have more rights than a living human being who was forcibly impregnated against her will?</quote> Where did I say they should have more rights? I never claimed the mother doesn't have a right to life, nor did I claim the baby does have the right to an abortion.</quote> You are claiming that a fetus has more of a right to live than a woman has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when she was forcibly raped against her will and made pregnant against her will.</quote> "What right am I saying the baby should have that the mother shouldn't?" "You're saying the baby should have right A but the mother shouldn't have right B! Doesn't matter that you think both should have right A but neither should have right B, you're still giving the baby more!"</quote> I'll break it down real simple for you. Why should a woman, that was forcibly impregnated via a sexual crime, be forced to have offspring from said crime? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of a heinous act that was inflicted on her against her will? Why should she be forced to carry a 9 month reminder of the physical and emotional trauma she was subject to by a violent criminal? Why should she be forced to be physically altered from a violent sexual assault from another individual she has no choice, consent, or control over?</quote> Why should the baby be killed over what a third party did? It doesn't matter what emotional plea you make; you have not yet given any justification for punishing Person B over the actions of Person A, when Person B themself has done nothing wrong. Until you can come up with a solid justification for that, your arguments are utterly irrelevant.</quote> You're not killing a baby, you're getting rid of a clump of cells. Stop being dishonest.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbreakable 10/16/18 8:11:38 PM #98:	DarkTransient posted... Why should the baby be killed over what a third party did? It doesn't matter what emotional plea you make; you have not yet given any justification for punishing Person B over the actions of Person A, when Person B themself has done nothing wrong. Until you can come up with a solid justification for that, your arguments are utterly irrelevant. "Person B" isn't actually a person. Incapable of thought or feeling of any kind --- But Wait... there's more <cite>Unbreakable posted [p:910648672] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>Why should the baby be killed over what a third party did? It doesn't matter what emotional plea you make; you have not yet given any justification for punishing Person B over the actions of Person A, when Person B themself has done nothing wrong. Until you can come up with a solid justification for that, your arguments are utterly irrelevant.</quote> "Person B" isn't actually a person. Incapable of thought or feeling of any kind</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 10/16/18 8:12:22 PM #99:	YUHH posted... You're not killing a baby, you're getting rid of a clump of cells. Stop being dishonest. DarkTransient posted... I'll continue discussing it with you when you stop declaring the people you want to legalize the killing of to be "not human" to justify it. That tactic wasn't valid when the Nazis used it, it wasn't valid when the KKK used it, and it isn't valid when pro-abortionists use it. --- Proud to be part of the 1% of society that's smart enough to realise Australia is not real. <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:910648714] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>YUHH posted...</cite> <quote>You're not killing a baby, you're getting rid of a clump of cells. Stop being dishonest.</quote> <cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>I'll continue discussing it with you when you stop declaring the people you want to legalize the killing of to be "not human" to justify it. That tactic wasn't valid when the Nazis used it, it wasn't valid when the KKK used it, and it isn't valid when pro-abortionists use it.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 10/16/18 8:13:04 PM #100:	DarkTransient posted... Tmaster148 posted... Let's outlaw male masturbation. Since sperm can is used to make a baby so all sperm that dies from masturbation is killing potential life. "Can be used to make one" is not the same thing as "is one". Life is life man. We shouldn't let men kill sperm, because they become babies. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:910648757] in Why is it ... [t:77103891]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>Let's outlaw male masturbation. Since sperm can is used to make a baby so all sperm that dies from masturbation is killing potential life.</quote> "Can be used to make one" is not the same thing as "is one".</quote> Life is life man. We shouldn't let men kill sperm, because they become babies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8

Current Events > Why is it important for abortion and gay marriage to be illegal? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Why is it important for abortion and gay marriage to be illegal?