|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 23, 2022 18:25:40 GMT -8
Don't be stupid. Of course a newborn is a person. No one is even debating that. No one but the far right pro-life extremists are even bringing that argument up because it's so disingenuous. A 4 month old fetus with no upper brain function? That's debatable. It's not black or white. It's gray, and being gray that should be left up to the pregnant woman to decide. Again, the rights of the prospective mother must outweight the rights of a non-viable fetus. She IS a person. That part isn't debatable. Don't be hypocritical. You call out people when they name call. Follow what you preach. Irony. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 23, 2022 18:38:15 GMT -8
Don't be hypocritical. You call out people when they name call. Follow what you preach. Irony. Actually, you have the bad habit of calling people stupid, or dumb as well. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Jul 23, 2022 19:39:57 GMT -8
I forgot to add, you stated:
"Pregnancy and childbirth are both dangerous and deadly for women. Modern medicine has greatly reduced the risks, sure, but they are still ever present."
This is true. It's not a trivial thing to be pregnant let alone give birth to a child. Having a child is intense to say the least.
But like I said before, fortunately or unfortunately if you create another human being, there is a responsibility that goes with it. For the Mom and the Dad.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 23, 2022 20:03:56 GMT -8
Don't be stupid. Of course a newborn is a person. No one is even debating that. No one but the far right pro-life extremists are even bringing that argument up because it's so disingenuous. A 4 month old fetus with no upper brain function? That's debatable. It's not black or white. It's gray, and being gray that should be left up to the pregnant woman to decide. Again, the rights of the prospective mother must outweight the rights of a non-viable fetus. She IS a person. That part isn't debatable. Don't be hypocritical. You call out people when they name call. Follow what you preach. I didn't say he was stupid. I just said he was being stupid with what he posted. Suggesting that anyone would support terminating an already born child is insulting. And stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Jul 23, 2022 20:22:37 GMT -8
Don't be hypocritical. You call out people when they name call. Follow what you preach. I didn't say he was stupid. I just said he was being stupid with what he posted. Suggesting that anyone would support terminating an already born child is insulting. And stupid. No, you were insulting. But no worries. Many cultures Historically have terminated children already born. It is well within our nature. Even today you can find people making arguments that you should be able to terminate the life of the child after it is born. Here is one I pulled up on a quick google search. slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.htmlBTW here is one of their moral claims: "Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us." Notice those philosophers don't consider newborn babies as persons. It's not anything new. EDIT: just remembered who I was originally thinking about. Peter Singer. Here is a quote from one of his books. "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." He is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 23, 2022 20:38:20 GMT -8
Don't be hypocritical. You call out people when they name call. Follow what you preach. I didn't say he was stupid. I just said he was being stupid with what he posted. Suggesting that anyone would support terminating an already born child is insulting. And stupid. Same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 23, 2022 21:40:32 GMT -8
I didn't say he was stupid. I just said he was being stupid with what he posted. Suggesting that anyone would support terminating an already born child is insulting. And stupid. Same thing. No, not even close. Smart people can say and do stupid things. They can be (act) stupid without actually being stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 23, 2022 21:45:43 GMT -8
I didn't say he was stupid. I just said he was being stupid with what he posted. Suggesting that anyone would support terminating an already born child is insulting. And stupid. No, you were insulting. But no worries. Many cultures Historically have terminated children already born. It is well within our nature. Even today you can find people making arguments that you should be able to terminate the life of the child after it is born. Here is one I pulled up on a quick google search. slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.htmlBTW here is one of their moral claims: "Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us." Notice those philosophers don't consider newborn babies as persons. It's not anything new. EDIT: just remembered who I was originally thinking about. Peter Singer. Here is a quote from one of his books. "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." He is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. OK, you know how absolutely FRINGE that kind of view is. It isn't legitimate, so just stop. It's an argument of distraction. It's trying to conflate a more mainstream opinion with a fringe one. The fact is prior to a fetus becoming an unborn baby (fully viable, self aware) it's open to debate. As such it should absolutely be up to the mother and no one else. That's my point. It's not black and white. It's gray. It's debatable. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 23, 2022 21:48:11 GMT -8
And I'll say it againk, since our conservatives ignored it last time...
Republicans just voted AGAINST contraceptives. Right after abortion has been made illegal in several states. That is utterly hypocritical. And unethical.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 23, 2022 22:17:04 GMT -8
No, not even close. Smart people can say and do stupid things. They can be (act) stupid without actually being stupid. You said he was being stupid. He was stupid in the moment. That's a derogatory name call. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 23, 2022 23:18:22 GMT -8
No, not even close. Smart people can say and do stupid things. They can be (act) stupid without actually being stupid. You said he was being stupid. He was stupid in the moment. That's a derogatory name call.  We're all stupid in the moment at times. I would hope that everyone is big enough and mature enough to accept it when they've been called out for saying something stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 23, 2022 23:47:32 GMT -8
And I'll say it againk, since our conservatives ignored it last time... Republicans just voted AGAINST contraceptives. Right after abortion has been made illegal in several states. That is utterly hypocritical. And unethical. It's almost as if some Republicans in Republican states want young people to be so afraid of getting pregnant that they won't have pre-marital sex... |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 23, 2022 23:53:32 GMT -8
I think personhood is arbitrary and should NOT be used to decide wether an individual is human or not. Human beings are personal type of beings. All of our functions (including personhood, whatever that is) develop because of type of being we ALREADY are. I didn't suddenly become a human being when I became viable, or became a person (whatever and whenever that was) or any other function. I'm a human being because my parents were human beings. I was a human being at conception. I will remain a human being until I die, even if I stop functioning correctly. I don't know how it could be more clear. The women's body isn't the ONLY body that is involved in a pregnancy and abortion. There is another body involved. The other body is the one that dies. You might think that is fine, but at least understand another human being is involved. Label that human nonviable (a newborn is completely dependent on another human being to care for it or it will not live) or not a person, or whatever, but the fact is, that unborn individual is another human being. And abortion ends that human beings life. Hmm well maybe the tax code should be updated if that's your belief. A lot of people want to change the number of dependents that they had when they were pregnant but the baby wasn't yet born in the calendar year. Also does this mean that if two people from Mexico or Europe have sex on vacation in America, and conceive a child in America, should their child now have US citizenship rights? If a person is a person, fetus or not, then a lot of people have a lot of citizenship claims and tax adjustments to make.. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 24, 2022 0:41:53 GMT -8
You said he was being stupid. He was stupid in the moment. That's a derogatory name call. We're all stupid in the moment at times. I would hope that everyone is big enough and mature enough to accept it when they've been called out for saying something stupid. I'm just saying that you've called people out for name calling, and personal insults, and that it's against the rules. Just pointing out that you just did it. Don't try to justify it. Practice what preach. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Jul 24, 2022 7:05:41 GMT -8
I think personhood is arbitrary and should NOT be used to decide wether an individual is human or not. Human beings are personal type of beings. All of our functions (including personhood, whatever that is) develop because of type of being we ALREADY are. I didn't suddenly become a human being when I became viable, or became a person (whatever and whenever that was) or any other function. I'm a human being because my parents were human beings. I was a human being at conception. I will remain a human being until I die, even if I stop functioning correctly. I don't know how it could be more clear. The women's body isn't the ONLY body that is involved in a pregnancy and abortion. There is another body involved. The other body is the one that dies. You might think that is fine, but at least understand another human being is involved. Label that human nonviable (a newborn is completely dependent on another human being to care for it or it will not live) or not a person, or whatever, but the fact is, that unborn individual is another human being. And abortion ends that human beings life. Hmm well maybe the tax code should be updated if that's your belief. A lot of people want to change the number of dependents that they had when they were pregnant but the baby wasn't yet born in the calendar year. Also does this mean that if two people from Mexico or Europe have sex on vacation in America, and conceive a child in America, should their child now have US citizenship rights? If a person is a person, fetus or not, then a lot of people have a lot of citizenship claims and tax adjustments to make.. I don't know. None of that would change the reality of the situation when in comes to pregnancy and abortion. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Jul 24, 2022 7:22:13 GMT -8
No, you were insulting. But no worries. Many cultures Historically have terminated children already born. It is well within our nature. Even today you can find people making arguments that you should be able to terminate the life of the child after it is born. Here is one I pulled up on a quick google search. slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.htmlBTW here is one of their moral claims: "Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us." Notice those philosophers don't consider newborn babies as persons. It's not anything new. EDIT: just remembered who I was originally thinking about. Peter Singer. Here is a quote from one of his books. "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." He is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. OK, you know how absolutely FRINGE that kind of view is. It isn't legitimate, so just stop. It's an argument of distraction. It's trying to conflate a more mainstream opinion with a fringe one. The fact is prior to a fetus becoming an unborn baby (fully viable, self aware) it's open to debate. As such it should absolutely be up to the mother and no one else. That's my point. It's not black and white. It's gray. It's debatable. I'm not conflating anything. You stated the unborn are not person's and therefore can be aborted. I said that was arbitrary and asked if a newborn is a person. And you got upset...instead of demonstrating how a newborn is person...I'm pretty sure if we went down the rabbit hole of philosophy there would be plenty of people who didn't believe newborn babies were persons (but that doesn't mean they would believe that you should be able to kill them). At what point do you believe an unborn individual is a person? Do you think there should be any limit to abortion? As far as the contraception thing, I know nothing about it. If you want to discuss I would have to have some info, what does it mean that republicans voted against contraceptives? What was their reasoning? (Not what someone says was their reasoning, but what they say their reasons are). |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 24, 2022 9:45:44 GMT -8
OK, you know how absolutely FRINGE that kind of view is. It isn't legitimate, so just stop. It's an argument of distraction. It's trying to conflate a more mainstream opinion with a fringe one. The fact is prior to a fetus becoming an unborn baby (fully viable, self aware) it's open to debate. As such it should absolutely be up to the mother and no one else. That's my point. It's not black and white. It's gray. It's debatable. I'm not conflating anything. You stated the unborn are not person's and therefore can be aborted. I said that was arbitrary and asked if a newborn is a person. And you got upset...instead of demonstrating how a newborn is person...I'm pretty sure if we went down the rabbit hole of philosophy there would be plenty of people who didn't believe newborn babies were persons (but that doesn't mean they would believe that you should be able to kill them). At what point do you believe an unborn individual is a person? Do you think there should be any limit to abortion? As far as the contraception thing, I know nothing about it. If you want to discuss I would have to have some info, what does it mean that republicans voted against contraceptives? What was their reasoning? (Not what someone says was their reasoning, but what they say their reasons are). Since Clarence Thomas DID say he wanted to get rid of the right to contraceptives, and he DID say that he wanted to get rid of the right to protect gay marriage, I don't think the Democrats are out of line here in trying to protect needed basic rights. Especially in light of the protection for abortion rights being wiped away. It's irresponsible to allow any threat to access to contraceptives if you're getting rid of abortion. Hell, it's immoral and unethical. So 195 Republicans in the House did the WRONG thing. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Jul 24, 2022 10:04:34 GMT -8
I'm not conflating anything. You stated the unborn are not person's and therefore can be aborted. I said that was arbitrary and asked if a newborn is a person. And you got upset...instead of demonstrating how a newborn is person...I'm pretty sure if we went down the rabbit hole of philosophy there would be plenty of people who didn't believe newborn babies were persons (but that doesn't mean they would believe that you should be able to kill them). At what point do you believe an unborn individual is a person? Do you think there should be any limit to abortion? As far as the contraception thing, I know nothing about it. If you want to discuss I would have to have some info, what does it mean that republicans voted against contraceptives? What was their reasoning? (Not what someone says was their reasoning, but what they say their reasons are). Since Clarence Thomas DID say he wanted to get rid of the right to contraceptives, and he DID say that he wanted to get rid of the right to protect gay marriage, I don't think the Democrats are out of line here in trying to protect needed basic rights. Especially in light of the protection for abortion rights being wiped away. It's irresponsible to allow any threat to access to contraceptives if you're getting rid of abortion. Hell, it's immoral and unethical. So 195 Republicans in the House did the WRONG thing. What does the legislation actually do and say. And why did most Republicans vote against it. What was their reason? |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 24, 2022 10:05:10 GMT -8
www.cbsnews.com/news/birth-control-contraception-bill-pass-house-vote/Since Clarence Thomas DID say he wanted to get rid of the right to contraceptives, and he DID say that he wanted to get rid of the right to protect gay marriage, I don't think the Democrats are out of line here in trying to protect needed basic rights. Especially in light of the protection for abortion rights being wiped away. It's irresponsible to allow any threat to access to contraceptives if you're getting rid of abortion. Hell, it's immoral and unethical. So 195 Republicans in the House did the WRONG thing. What does the legislation actually do and say. And why did most Republicans vote against it. What was their reason? Their reason? Play to their base and oppose the Democrats. Pretty simple, really. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 24, 2022 10:54:43 GMT -8
www.cbsnews.com/news/birth-control-contraception-bill-pass-house-vote/Since Clarence Thomas DID say he wanted to get rid of the right to contraceptives, and he DID say that he wanted to get rid of the right to protect gay marriage, I don't think the Democrats are out of line here in trying to protect needed basic rights. Especially in light of the protection for abortion rights being wiped away. It's irresponsible to allow any threat to access to contraceptives if you're getting rid of abortion. Hell, it's immoral and unethical. So 195 Republicans in the House did the WRONG thing. What does the legislation actually do and say. And why did most Republicans vote against it. What was their reason? So families can have 6 to 8 kids again (as long as they are white), mom can be a stay at home like the old days. Plenty of water, housing and resources to go around. Wow, it will be Ozzie and Harriet all over again...think about that!🙏 |
|
