Civil Discourse

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fogdog said:
So then make that argument, dummy. This is supposed civil discourse.

I'm staking the position that the government does not have the right to force a woman to carry a fertilized egg until it can survive outside her body. I begin with the point that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her body including whether or not to carry it to term. If the mass of cells feeding off the woman that you call a child could survive outside her body then maybe you'd have an argument.

What forcing a woman to carry to term does is perpetuate inequality between men and women. Bring that up at a date and how you support that. Your field of available women will drop by about 75%.
Click to expand...
Ok. Let me present an analogy. Picture a young relative of yours, a baby perhaps. This child is in an accident and goes into a coma. The doctor says there is a very good chance that the child will come out of the coma in about 7 months and be 100% ok. The child will be a burden on the mother and the family until they wake up. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plug on the child?
 
UncleBuck said:
I’m glad your stepdad didn’t beat you too badly, fish belly
Click to expand...
I think he did get it pretty bad but blames himself for
Rob Roy said:
Taking things that don't belong to you without the consent of the owner is stealing.

That's how.

If you don't have that right (you don't) you can't possibly delegate a nonexistent right to others, even If the others suffer from a delusion that because they call themselves "government" they are exempt from things we are not exempt from.

You will not address what I just said, since what I just said is irrefutably correct and mathematically provable.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...
prove it then
 
MichiganSpinDoctor said:
Ok. Let me present an analogy. Picture a young relative of yours, a baby perhaps. This child is in an accident and goes into a coma. The doctor says there is a very good chance that the child will come out of the coma in about 7 months and be 100% ok. The child will be a burden on the mother and the family until they wake up. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plug on the child?
Click to expand...
Bad analogy. Not even close to forcing a woman to carry full term.
 
MichiganSpinDoctor said:
Ok. Let me present an analogy. Picture a young relative of yours, a baby perhaps. This child is in an accident and goes into a coma. The doctor says there is a very good chance that the child will come out of the coma in about 7 months and be 100% ok. The child will be a burden on the mother and the family until they wake up. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plug on the child?
Click to expand...
can the coma kill the woman?
 
Fogdog said:
Bad analogy. Not even close to forcing a woman to carry full term.
Click to expand...
UncleBuck said:
can the coma kill the woman?
Click to expand...
Ok. The family with the coma child is on the move, on foot in a post apocalyptic wasteland. Defending yourself from feral dogs and zombies is more difficult while dragging the child on a sledge. Also, the mother must keep an IV running from her arm into the child's for the entire coma period. There is a very good chance that in around 7 months, the child will be 100% ok. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plug on the child?
 
MichiganSpinDoctor said:
Ok. The family with the coma child is on the move, on foot in a post apocalyptic wasteland. Defending yourself from feral dogs and zombies is more difficult while dragging the child on a sledge. Also, the mother must keep an IV running from her arm into the child's for the entire coma period. There is a very good chance that in around 7 months, the child will be 100% ok. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plug on the child?
Click to expand...
eat my poop
 
Rob Roy said:
Didn't your government also decide that your consent or lack thereof doesn't really matter to them, when it comes to aspects of your own body ? Your own property ? (those are rhetorical questions btw...not you'd answer them anyhow)

Odd that you would cite their instructions as something to follow for a guideline concerning what is and isn't consent, since they exempt themselves from having to have your consent in order to fuck you anyway they decide.
Click to expand...
Some people’s fuckery is another’s obligation to help pay for things they use by paying taxes to use them. Like health care, roads, schools, to name a few. And yes the government does place restrictions on what we do and they are not exempt as they are held accountable. Keep on spouting your bullshit and I’ll keep calling it what it is bullshit. You still haven’t answered the question I asked have you? Do you think a 21 year old should be punished if he/she has intercourse with a 12 year old? Easy question yes or no.
 
MichiganSpinDoctor said:
Ok. The family with the coma child is on the move, on foot in a post apocalyptic wasteland. Defending yourself from feral dogs and zombies is more difficult while dragging the child on a sledge. Also, the mother must keep an IV running from her arm into the child's for the entire coma period. There is a very good chance that in around 7 months, the child will be 100% ok. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plug on the child?
Click to expand...
Yes it is if it means the survival of the family is dependant on not pulling the kid around IMO. But they would probably sacrifice themselves to keep the kid alive, whatever they do I would feel extremely sorry for them having to make whatever decision they made and would not judge them unlike you who would call them immoral. I applaud women who are strong enough to make the decision required.
 
Well thanks everyone, for another day of civil discourse. Today was speak your mind Sunday. I did not have time to express all my thoughts today. Maybe we will revisit some of todays conversations again. Thanks again yall. Keep growing.
 
Budley Doright said:
I think he did get it pretty bad but blames himself for

prove it then
Click to expand...


Well certainly, I thought you'd never ask. I'll prove confiscatory taxes are a scam too.

Okay, you and I can't delegate a right we don't possess. That's self evident and only an idiot would question that Let's express that as a zero or 0.

You, nor I have any right to take things which don't belong to us, nobody does. That's universally known as theft when people do that. So, again let's express that as zero right to steal.

Since both you and I have ZERO right to commit theft, we can't combine that zero right with dozens or hundreds or thousands of other people (none of whom have any right to theft) and by changing what we call ourselves, ("government" ) somehow create something positive from the sum of all of our individual zeroes.

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 (ad finitum) will always come to zero. There's your mathematical proof that people have no ability to combine nonexistent rights exponentially and somehow come up with a positive sum, thus creating a right which none of them ever had.

I assume you understand rudimentary math ? I eagerly await your astute counter argument.
 
MichiganSpinDoctor said:
Ok. The family with the coma child is on the move, on foot in a post apocalyptic wasteland. Defending yourself from feral dogs and zombies is more difficult while dragging the child on a sledge. Also, the mother must keep an IV running from her arm into the child's for the entire coma period. There is a very good chance that in around 7 months, the child will be 100% ok. Is it morally acceptable to pull the plug on the child?
Click to expand...
Your analogy takes place after she deals with safety and the ravages that child bearing has on the woman's body. Understand the basis of this argument is about a woman's right to decide what happens with her own body.

Everything you imagine takes place after this choice was made. In my ethos the woman had already sacrificed for the kid and was dealing with hardship. Under yours, the woman HAD to bear that child as a mandate by the state. Now you have the unwilling mother in a post apocolyptic world risking her life for a child she didn't want in the first place. Jeez, what a terrible world you would choose to have.
 
Fogdog said:
Your analogy takes place after she deals with safety and the ravages that child bearing has on the woman's body. Understand the basis of this argument is about a woman's right to decide what happens with her own body.

Everything you imagine takes place after this choice was made. In my ethos the woman had already sacrificed for the kid and was dealing with hardship. Under yours, the woman HAD to bear that child as a mandate by the state. Now you have the unwilling mother in a post apocolyptic world risking her life for a child she didn't want in the first place. Jeez, what a terrible world you would choose to have.
Click to expand...
It is an emotional story. I understand, you're too choked up to answer the question. Take your time.
 
MichiganSpinDoctor said:
It is an emotional story. I understand, you're too choked up to answer the question. Take your time.
Click to expand...
During times of stress due to famine, drought, war, domestic partner's abuse, experiencing homelessness and others, the frequency of miscarriages goes up, way up. This is a survival response by the mother's body to ensure her survival. Is it wrong for this to be a natural response? Better that both die, i guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top