Abortion- Unexpected results

[ll74]

Tell that to the theologians.

Why? They know just as well that they have no proof of a soul.

From a scientific perspective, it is interesting how unique people are with the same basic makeup, but a gap in explanation is not proof of something else.

 

[HisArpy]

Why? They know just as well that they have no proof of a soul.

From a scientific perspective, it is interesting how unique people are with the same basic makeup, but a gap in explanation is not proof of something else.

How would you know? Have you studied their dissertations and other works?

Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[ll74]

How would you know? Have you studied their dissertations and other works?

Lol....they did not prove a soul...sorry

Yeah, didn't think so.

Basing beliefs upon other beliefs isn't proof.

 

[Lazaran]

If I incorrectly stated your position on abortion, I apologize. What do you you believe the law should be regarding abortion? Not what the law is right now. What should it be?

I see what you’re doing…and it’s hilarious.



Derpy can NEVER SOLIDLY COMMIT to a PERSONAL position on IMPORTANT (NOT "carbon based water") issues. (See also: Derpy FAILING to SOLIDLY COMMIT to a position on who would win the election when Rory offered Derpy the chance.) Derpy CONSTANTLY hides behind the pathetic dodge / deflection of: “whatever the law says” or “I’m taking my ball and going home” when it comes to expressing a PERSONAL position on IMPORTANT issues.



Being SOLIDLY COMMITTED to a position is difficult forJell-O and weak- spined / spineless individuals. (See also: Derpy.)

Poor Derpy.



Derpy

 

[jomar]

Abortion and rape are banned topics at some forums, because they always lead to shouted ad hom and rabid rants.

But not here. Here it’s always respectful debate with scientific evidence.

 

[colddiesel]

It baffles me why there needs to be any law at all on Abortion. Why not let every individual woman directly affected make her own decision with whomsoever she chooses to consult. The decisions of minors will be dealt with in the ordinary context of Parents/Guardians.

Politicians and lawyers add absolutely nothing except hate and division. It should be an entirely personal matter of freedom of the individual, without any interference from politics or the law.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

It baffles me why there needs to be any law at all on Abortion. Why not let every individual woman directly affected make her own decision with whomsoever she chooses to consult. The decisions of minors will be dealt with in the ordinary context of Parents/Guardians.

Politicians and lawyers add absolutely nothing except hate and division. It should be an entirely personal matter of freedom of the individual, without any interference from politics or the law.

Yes. This.

 

[HisArpy]

It baffles me why there needs to be any law at all on Abortion. Why not let every individual woman directly affected make her own decision with whomsoever she chooses to consult. The decisions of minors will be dealt with in the ordinary context of Parents/Guardians.

Politicians and lawyers add absolutely nothing except hate and division. It should be an entirely personal matter of freedom of the individual, without any interference from politics or the law.

This is the battle that should have been fought back in the 1960's but wasn't. Government has no business involving itself in reproduction AT ALL. Not pro, not con, not regulated or controlled.

But, like all things, someone out there decided that their world view MUST BE the world view of the rest of us and no one pushed back on it. What they sought was a compromise and it failed because abortion has been reduced to a tug-o-war political topic. The same thing happened with gay marriage (ie; Marriage is a religious rite not a government regulation or category. Thus the term "Marriage" should have been reserved for that rite alone. Anyone who wanted to get "Married" must adhere to the tenets of the religion of the religious officiant or seek another social ritual such as being "wedded" by the government.)

It is ALSO the same issue with guns and gun control. Someone out there decided that their world view MUST BE imposed on everyone whether they agree or not.

So the underlying issue isn't the topic in view, it's the use of force to mandate compliance.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

This is the battle that should have been fought back in the 1960's but wasn't. Government has no business involving itself in reproduction AT ALL. Not pro, not con, not regulated or controlled.

But, like all things, someone out there decided that their world view MUST BE the world view of the rest of us and no one pushed back on it. What they sought was a compromise and it failed because abortion has been reduced to a tug-o-war political topic. The same thing happened with gay marriage (ie; Marriage is a religious rite not a government regulation or category. Thus the term "Marriage" should have been reserved for that rite alone. Anyone who wanted to get "Married" must adhere to the tenets of the religion of the religious officiant or seek another social ritual such as being "wedded" by the government.)

It is ALSO the same issue with guns and gun control. Someone out there decided that their world view MUST BE imposed on everyone whether they agree or not.

So the underlying issue isn't the topic in view, it's the use of force to mandate compliance.

I’m glad to hear that you support removing all government restrictions from abortion and marriage. But it is useful to have the government recognize the existence of marriages, for example in matters of inheritance or making medical decisions when one spouse is unconscious.

 

[HisArpy]

I’m glad to hear that you support removing all government restrictions from abortion and marriage. But it is useful to have the government recognize the existence of marriages, for example in matters of inheritance or making medical decisions when one spouse is unconscious.

How many times do you need to be told that's not what I said?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

How many times do you need to be told that's not what I said?

You just said that government has no business involving itself in reproduction AT ALL.

 

[HisArpy]

You just said that government has no business involving itself in reproduction AT ALL.

I SAID that at the time in the 1960's the battle over abortion should have been fought with that rallying cry.

Unfortunately it wasn't. Just like Gay Marriage wasn't opposed with the idea that "Marriage" is a religious rite.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I SAID that at the time in the 1960's the battle over abortion should have been fought with that rallying cry.

Unfortunately it wasn't. Just like Gay Marriage wasn't opposed with the idea that "Marriage" is a religious rite.

What people did or didn’t do 60 years ago is immaterial.

Right now you think there should be restrictions on abortion. I think there shouldn’t be.

You won’t defend your position because you know it’s indefensible.

 

[HisArpy]

What people did or didn’t do 60 years ago is immaterial.

Right now you think there should be restrictions on abortion. I think there shouldn’t be.

You won’t defend your position because you know it’s indefensible.

It can't be immaterial when it literally established the rules of the game.

Seriously, how fucking stupid are you?

I also repeat my position: I stand for the law. The law says abortion can be regulated and restricted and that the individual States are the ones who get to do it.

That you don't like that outcome, isn't good enough. And it certainly doesn't need defending from someone who can't understand that you've already lost the entire battle because you conceded in the beginning that the government has the power to regulate human reproduction.

You're stuck with that and bitching about me supporting the outcome instead of opposing it just shows how dam dum you are. Especially when you add in all the snide bullshit about how men shouldn't even be able to comment on the issue AND how you and the rest of the unintelligent here on Lit constantly say I'm a bad lawyer. Given that, why the fuck would I even consider supporting your cause since you've made it clear that you want nothing to do with me or my opinion or expertise?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

We could easily end all abortions by giving all males a vasectomy.

 

[Ramone45]

Liberals rejoice at the murder of more negro babies!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Also, string theory is just a theory... a belief... Are you going to deny that too?

The issue here is that you don’t understand the word theory.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

It can't be immaterial when it literally established the rules of the game.

Seriously, how fucking stupid are you?

I also repeat my position: I stand for the law. The law says abortion can be regulated and restricted and that the individual States are the ones who get to do it.

That you don't like that outcome, isn't good enough. And it certainly doesn't need defending from someone who can't understand that you've already lost the entire battle because you conceded in the beginning that the government has the power to regulate human reproduction.

You're stuck with that and bitching about me supporting the outcome instead of opposing it just shows how dam dum you are. Especially when you add in all the snide bullshit about how men shouldn't even be able to comment on the issue AND how you and the rest of the unintelligent here on Lit constantly say I'm a bad lawyer. Given that, why the fuck would I even consider supporting your cause since you've made it clear that you want nothing to do with me or my opinion or expertise?

The current law on abortion in the United States should be changed to conform to what the majority of Americans want.

It’s true I don’t have any respect for your opinion or your expertise.

 

[Lazaran]

You won’t defend your position because you know it’s indefensible.

Derpy has a position???

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Derpy has a position???

His position is that current abortion law should remain exactly the same forever and NEVER be changed.

 

[Lazaran]

His position is that current abortion law should remain exactly the same forever and NEVER be changed.

I’m glad you defined Derpy’s position, because I can never make heads or tails out of that idiot’s word-salad dodges when it comes to taking a firm position on an issue.



Derpy’s lawyerly double-speak doesn’t translate well to an open forum where the ability to clearly express one’s position is paramount.



Derpy

 

[ll74]

Liberals rejoice at the murder of more negro babies!

I'm a liberal and I'm against infanticide.

 

[Chernosoth]

Seriously, how fucking stupid are you?

You're arguing with someone who still supported Biden's candidacy after the debate.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You're arguing with someone who still supported Biden's candidacy after the debate.

Yes, I did. President Biden had a bad debate, but he’s still more honest and competent than Donald Trump.

 

[HisArpy]

You're arguing with someone who still supported Biden's candidacy after the debate.

Mea Culpa.