The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

[Hammster]

I don't know why you do this? It's not an honest way to communicate or discuss things with people.

I have never said we shouldn't have laws at all.

Fair enough.

Doesn't matter if they are scared and doesn't matter if they are killed. It doesn't lead to any social disharmony, it doesn't lead to retaliation, doesn't lead to feuds or wars. Its not a matter for the government.

So again, if you can get away with it, it’s okay.

Murder is a very loaded word. I assume you are smart enough to know that murder is a legal term that the justice system uses.

It’s a biblical term.

Abortions are not deemed as murder, just as self defense isn't murder, just as exactions aren't murder, just as euthanasia isn't murder.

Actually, they are all murder. Some are justified.

I'm not making statements about whether something is okay. Just statements about whether it is the government's business or not.

You said “it doesn't lead to retaliation”. If it did, would you change your mind? Let’s say the father didn’t want his unborn child killed and went after the mother. How does that affect your stance?

 

[A2SG]

It’s your position, though.

No, it is not. I've never said a single thing that even remotely comes close to that. Ever.

Maybe you’ve just never connected the dots. Well, unless you don’t think women are educated enough to know how pregnancy works.

And again, you're completely, 100% wrong.

Please stop pretending you know what I believe, what my argument is, or what I think. You do not.

If you want to know, I'll tell you. I've never been shy or coy about that. There's no need to make anything up.

-- A2SG, not responsible for what comes out of your imagination...

 

[Hammster]

No, it is not. I've never said a single thing that even remotely comes close to that. Ever.


And again, you're completely, 100% wrong.

Please stop pretending you know what I believe, what my argument is, or what I think. You do not.

If you want to know, I'll tell you. I've never been shy or coy about that. There's no need to make anything up.

-- A2SG, not responsible for what comes out of your imagination...

Okay. Maybe I’m wrong. I guess you do believe that actions have consequences and that people are responsible for those consequences. Such as, engaging in sexual intercourse sometimes leads to pregnancy.

 

[A2SG]

Okay. Maybe I’m wrong.

No maybe about it. You are.

I guess you do believe that actions have consequences and that people are responsible for those consequences. Such as, engaging in sexual intercourse sometimes leads to pregnancy.

Yes, it can. How any individual deals with that is that individual's responsibility, and it's not my place, nor anyone else's, to force any decision on that person. Not by coercion through religion or by law.

Period.

Clear enough?

-- A2SG, can't state it any plainer....

 

[o_mlly]

I’m not interested in your argument.

And your disinterest is because you cannot logically defeat the argument?

 

[comana]

And your disinterest is because you cannot logically defeat the argument?

Your logic is irrelevant to my argument.

 

[o_mlly]

But you're not arguing for abortions to be restricted prior to personhood ...

When exactly does the child attain "personhood"? At "viability", you say? You do see that your argument is circular and does not defeat my argument.

Nobody can argue that what a woman is carrying a week after conception is a small person.

Do you have any scientific evidence to support your claim? I think not.

 

[Hammster]

No maybe about it. You are.


Yes, it can. How any individual deals with that is that individual's responsibility, and it's not my place, nor anyone else's, to force any decision on that person. Not by coercion through religion or by law.

Period.

Clear enough?

-- A2SG, can't state it any plainer....

It’s always been clear. And nothing changed about my earlier comment.

 

[o_mlly]

Or are you amenable to medical decisions on when personhood occurs?

Once again, I have to remind you that we are only arguing about the rationality of having abortions for convenience.

 

[A2SG]

It’s always been clear. And nothing changed about my earlier comment.

You mean the part where you told me what my argument was, and got it completely, totally wrong?

-- A2SG, apparently, you may not be as clear on it as you think....

 

[NxNW]

She made the choice to have sex.

That's not an agreement to be an incubator.

A baby isn’t an intruder.

We're not even talking about babies, though.

And they aren’t being evicted. They are being murdered.

It's not murder if a human being isn't dying, which it isn't.

 

[NxNW]

Okay. Maybe I’m wrong. I guess you do believe that actions have consequences and that people are responsible for those consequences. Such as, engaging in sexual intercourse sometimes leads to pregnancy.

Driving a car sometimes leads to accidents. But we don't refuse medical treatment to those who chose to drive.

 

[NxNW]

Nobody can argue that what a woman is carrying a week after conception is a small person.

Do you have any scientific evidence to support your claim? I think not.

If I can jump in here, yes I can. Twinning can occur after that point, which means the number of so-called humans can't even be quantified at the one-week mark. And since all humans are distinct, the fact that you can't quantify them/it disqualifies the zygote from being a person or persons.

Ask yourself: Did both twins exist before the split? If so, you're claiming there were two humans in the single fertilized egg, which is nonsense. If no, then you've conceded that life begins after conception. Take your pick, but you have to choose one.

 

[RileyG]

Does that include the desire to create laws enforcing one's morality onto other people's health care choices?

This isn’t about morality.

It’s about life.

Don’t change the subject.

 

[RileyG]

This logic applies equally to the "teenager needs a kidney" situation. And I don't know of anyone advocating for government intervention to force parents to donate organs to their kids. So there seems to be a bit of a double standard for some reason.

What double standard? Not murder their own offspring?

 

[RileyG]

The unborn isn't entitled to a womb donation.

She didn't agree to anything, since the unborn didn't exist at the time she was having sex. You can't have an agreement with "someone" who doesn't exist.

She chose to have sex which lead to the creation of an unborn child. If you agree to certain actions, they have consequences. That’s just how it is.

 

[RileyG]

And nobody is actually killing the teen. This scenario isn’t even in the same category.

EXACTLY! Not related at all.

 

[Hammster]

You mean the part where you told me what my argument was, and got it completely, totally wrong?

-- A2SG, apparently, you may not be as clear on it as you think....

I got it right.

 

[Hammster]

That's not an agreement to be an incubator.

Consequences. But maybe you’re another one who doesn’t think we are responsible for our actions.

We're not even talking about babies, though.

Yes, we are

It's not murder if a human being isn't dying, which it isn't.

That’s correct. But we are talking about humans.

 

[Hammster]

Driving a car sometimes leads to accidents. But we don't refuse medical treatment to those who chose to drive.

Correct and we don’t murder them either.