row_33 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 I accept that most would call themselves pro-choice when asked but these proposed acts of legislation are beyond the levels of any decency 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 34 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: It's not my fault, or anyone else's for that matter, that you don't understand the concepts in play; and the argument only seems dumb to you because of your profound ignorance. "Rights" has a very specific and narrow meaning. They are fundamental to your humanity, and the basis of right and wrong. They cannot be taken from you, or given to you; only violated and protected. Anything beyond this which requires the intervention of other people is not a right, but rather is a privilege. Rights exist inherent to you in a state of nature, requiring the efforts or no other person or entity; as you cannot be said to have a right to anything which requires the labor of another person. What you are referring to as "legal rights" are not rights at all. They are social/legal privileges put into place, constructed on top of your foundational natural rights, and do not supersede, amend, or repeal them. These come from other individuals or societies intervention, and can be removed from you; meaning you had no right to them. They are not rights. This is a nice paragraph if we were in a high school civil class, or in a college philosophy class. But not when it comes to the law on this country. You are blatantly wrong. You keep mentioning inalienable rights, discounting there are other rights. It’s very stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: This is a nice paragraph if we were in a high school civil class, or in a college philosophy class. But not when it comes to the law on this country. You are blatantly wrong. You keep mentioning inalienable rights, discounting there are other rights. It’s very stupid. No, what's stupid is your insistence on comingling two very different concepts, inalienable rights and legal privileges, and then making an argument which insists that since the thing you comingled with rights that aren't rights are mutable, that actual rights are mutable as well. This is exactly what you're doing when you draw your line for "giving babies rights" at birth. It's introduction is either incredibly stupid or completely intellectually dishonest, and either way, I reject it wholesale. You'll need to make a much better argument, because the one you're making sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 26 lives are ended EVERY DAY. JUST IN CONNECTICUT, by abortion. a Sandy Hook a month. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 38 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Ummmm. Wouldn’t we all have that factor (“you”) as a common denominator? Its kinda inherent in you being in the argument.... Yes. You idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 29 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Yes. You idiot. Ouch! 50 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, what's stupid is your insistence on comingling two very different concepts, inalienable rights and legal privileges, and then making an argument which insists that since the thing you comingled with rights that aren't rights are mutable, that actual rights are mutable as well. This is exactly what you're doing when you draw your line for "giving babies rights" at birth. It's introduction is either incredibly stupid or completely intellectually dishonest, and either way, I reject it wholesale. You'll need to make a much better argument, because the one you're making sucks. Whats your state, I’ll teach you some rights the government has given people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Ouch! Whats your state, I’ll teach you some rights the government has given people. lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Whats your state, I’ll teach you some rights the government has given people. Again, your ass is out. There are no amounts of legal or social privileges any state government has given to anyone which are tantamount to rights. You can show me as many as you'd like, but not one of them are rights unless they are directly, or directly related to, natural rights. Beyond natural rights there are no other rights; if someone can give them to you, or take them away, then you do not have the right to them. As such, rights do not come from government. Full stop. And again, your conflation of legal privilege with rights for the purpose of imposing mutability on the natural right to life is an absurd argument to make, and I reject it wholesale. Words have meaning. Simply declaring that something is a right does not make it so. Edited February 21, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Words do have meaning. What Is a Born-Alive ‘Fetus’? by Alexandria DeSanctis As the Senate prepares to vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act — which would require doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive in the process of attempted abortion procedures — opponents of the bill have begun to deploy an intriguing rhetorical sleight of hand. It showed up first in a letter from Senator Tim Kaine (D., Va.) to a constituent, in which he attempted to explain why he isn’t supporting the born-alive bill. “This bill would establish new requirements for health care practitioners in the case of a fetus who survives an abortion,” Kaine wrote of the legislation. In the case of what? If a “fetus” survives an abortion, presumably it is no longer a fetus but a newborn infant. The word “fetus,” of course, is already working overtime to assist those who wish to disguise the reality of what takes place during an abortion procedure. It comes from Latin and means nothing more than “unborn child” or “unborn offspring.” But abortion defenders use the word as medical-sounding jargon, a crutch to dehumanize the unborn. It isn’t an unborn child, they insist; it’s a fetus. A fetus doesn’t have moral status. A fetus doesn’t have rights. But now, in their haste to justify their opposition to a bill that prohibits infanticide — whether of the direct or indirect variety — abortion supporters appear to think they can use a word meaning “unborn offspring” to describe an infant born alive in the context of a failed abortion attempt. This trick showed up again this afternoon, this time from Jennifer Conti, a doctor and abortion-rights advocate: Quote Dr. Jennifer Conti ✔@doctorjenn The bill would require emergency transport of the fetus & resuscitation in hopeless situations, like a pre-viable lethal fetal anomaly, even when such actions directly conflict with the wishes of the family or the expert medical advice of the doctor. Why is this a good idea? 11:34 AM - Feb 22, 2019 But the bill doesn’t require transporting a fetus to the hospital. It requires transporting an infant to the hospital. These supporters of abortion are once more twisting words beyond recognizable meaning in order to obscure and rationalize the dehumanization and persecution of vulnerable, unwanted individuals. In the process, they reveal that so much of the defense of all abortion is nothing more than a word game. It matters little whether we refer to the human being inside the womb as a fetus or an unborn child, or to the newborn infant as a child or a baby or even a fetus. It is the same human being both in and outside of its mother. That is the truth they are desperate to avoid. .https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/abortion-protection-debate-what-is-born-alive-fetus/ AND We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus ... rather than to that of a child.” 'After-birth abortion': Can they be serious? - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../post/after-birth-abortion.../gIQADgiOsR_blog.ht... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: Words do have meaning. What Is a Born-Alive ‘Fetus’? by Alexandria DeSanctis As the Senate prepares to vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act — which would require doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive in the process of attempted abortion procedures — opponents of the bill have begun to deploy an intriguing rhetorical sleight of hand. It showed up first in a letter from Senator Tim Kaine (D., Va.) to a constituent, in which he attempted to explain why he isn’t supporting the born-alive bill. “This bill would establish new requirements for health care practitioners in the case of a fetus who survives an abortion,” Kaine wrote of the legislation. In the case of what? If a “fetus” survives an abortion, presumably it is no longer a fetus but a newborn infant. The word “fetus,” of course, is already working overtime to assist those who wish to disguise the reality of what takes place during an abortion procedure. It comes from Latin and means nothing more than “unborn child” or “unborn offspring.” But abortion defenders use the word as medical-sounding jargon, a crutch to dehumanize the unborn. It isn’t an unborn child, they insist; it’s a fetus. A fetus doesn’t have moral status. A fetus doesn’t have rights. But now, in their haste to justify their opposition to a bill that prohibits infanticide — whether of the direct or indirect variety — abortion supporters appear to think they can use a word meaning “unborn offspring” to describe an infant born alive in the context of a failed abortion attempt. This trick showed up again this afternoon, this time from Jennifer Conti, a doctor and abortion-rights advocate: But the bill doesn’t require transporting a fetus to the hospital. It requires transporting an infant to the hospital. These supporters of abortion are once more twisting words beyond recognizable meaning in order to obscure and rationalize the dehumanization and persecution of vulnerable, unwanted individuals. In the process, they reveal that so much of the defense of all abortion is nothing more than a word game. It matters little whether we refer to the human being inside the womb as a fetus or an unborn child, or to the newborn infant as a child or a baby or even a fetus. It is the same human being both in and outside of its mother. That is the truth they are desperate to avoid. .https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/abortion-protection-debate-what-is-born-alive-fetus/ AND We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus ... rather than to that of a child.” 'After-birth abortion': Can they be serious? - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../post/after-birth-abortion.../gIQADgiOsR_blog.ht... "The bill would require emergency transport of the fetus & resuscitation in hopeless situations, like a pre-viable lethal fetal anomaly, " That makes no sense. "Pre-viable" resuscitation? Then it's not "pre-viable," it's viable. "Lethal fetal anomaly?" That's literally prenatal - there's no such thing as a lethal postnatal fetal anomaly - that's called a "dead baby." Her tweet is nothing more than playing fast and loose with words to sound smart when she's actually being very, very dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: "The bill would require emergency transport of the fetus & resuscitation in hopeless situations, like a pre-viable lethal fetal anomaly, " That makes no sense. "Pre-viable" resuscitation? Then it's not "pre-viable," it's viable. "Lethal fetal anomaly?" That's literally prenatal - there's no such thing as a lethal postnatal fetal anomaly - that's called a "dead baby." Her tweet is nothing more than playing fast and loose with words to sound smart when she's actually being very, very dumb. No, she’s not. She’s very smart, and very evil; and it trying to push her agenda to people who are very dumb, and will accept what she’s saying because of her jargon and credentials. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, she’s not. She’s very smart, and very evil; and it trying to push her agenda to people who are very dumb, and will accept what she’s saying because of her jargon and credentials. It's interesting to watch the left see how vile they can get. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 New Pro-Life Movie ‘Unplanned’ Gets R Rating By Grace Carr The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) officially gave the upcoming abortion film “Unplanned” an “R” rating Friday for “some disturbing/bloody images” of aborted babies. Movies are rated R for profanity, nudity, sex or violence. “Unplanned” contains no profanity, nudity or sex. “Ironically, the MPAA seems to be indirectly endorsing the pro-life position: namely that abortion is an act of violence,” writers and directors Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman told Movieguide. The film tells the true story of former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson who worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, until 2009 when she left the organization after assisting in an ultrasound-guided abortion of a 13-week-old unborn baby. Johnson was Planned Parenthood’s youngest director of a clinic in the nation. She helped over 22,000 women have abortions during her time at the clinic. Planned Parenthood named Johnson as the employee of the year in 2008. She worked at the abortion provider for eight years before leaving the group. Johnson also had a medication abortion before she became pro-life. The R rating will mean that “many teenage women in this country who can legally obtain an actual abortion without parental permission will be prohibited from going to see our film containing simulated images of abortion, without obtaining parental permission,” Solomon and Konzelman also said, noting the double-edged sword of the rating. More at the Link: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/22/new-pro-life-movie-unplanned-gets-r-rating/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FoundryConservativePolicyNews+(The+Daily+Signal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 https://twitter.com/RealKyleMorris/status/1099023330533879808 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 This has to be chilling news for certain political circles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 24 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: This has to be chilling news for certain political circles... I'm thinking opinions didn't change, the polling questions were reframed by NY and VA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 On 2/22/2019 at 4:27 PM, B-Man said: New Pro-Life Movie ‘Unplanned’ Gets R Rating By Grace Carr The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) officially gave the upcoming abortion film “Unplanned” an “R” rating Friday for “some disturbing/bloody images” of aborted babies. Movies are rated R for profanity, nudity, sex or violence. “Unplanned” contains no profanity, nudity or sex. “Ironically, the MPAA seems to be indirectly endorsing the pro-life position: namely that abortion is an act of violence,” writers and directors Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman told Movieguide. The film tells the true story of former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson who worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, until 2009 when she left the organization after assisting in an ultrasound-guided abortion of a 13-week-old unborn baby. Johnson was Planned Parenthood’s youngest director of a clinic in the nation. She helped over 22,000 women have abortions during her time at the clinic. Planned Parenthood named Johnson as the employee of the year in 2008. She worked at the abortion provider for eight years before leaving the group. Johnson also had a medication abortion before she became pro-life. The R rating will mean that “many teenage women in this country who can legally obtain an actual abortion without parental permission will be prohibited from going to see our film containing simulated images of abortion, without obtaining parental permission,” Solomon and Konzelman also said, noting the double-edged sword of the rating. More at the Link: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/22/new-pro-life-movie-unplanned-gets-r-rating/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FoundryConservativePolicyNews+(The+Daily+Signal) The truth is always throttled by those who have an agenda to uphold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 New poll spells BIG TROUBLE for ‘pro-choice’ and they have Democrats to THANK for it From The Federalist: According to a new poll from Marist, Americans’ attitudes on abortion have dramatically shifted over the last month. Americans are now as likely to identify as pro-life (47 percent) as they are pro-choice (47 percent). A similar survey taken by Marist just last month found Americans were more likely to identify as pro-choice than as pro-life by a 17-point difference. “The recent legal changes to late-term abortion and the debate which followed have not gone unnoticed by the general public,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of The Marist Poll. “In just one month, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of Americans who see themselves as pro-life and an equally notable decline in those who describe themselves as pro-choice.” Marist has been polling abortion views for more than a decade. Carvalho said this is the first time since 2009 that as many or more Americans have identified as pro-life as have identified as pro-choice. So in other words, Democrats have accidentally reminded the country what abortion is REALLY ABOUT by pushing legislation allowing for babies who are literally being born or having recently been born to be aborted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilzfancy Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 be embarrassed, libs, be very embarrassed... https://www.updateamerica.com/list_of_2020_dems_who_voted_no_on_bill_to_protect_born_alive_infants?utm_source=FFA&utm_medium=JAS1&fbclid=IwAR0wT8plf0cSCcQwo7AuxmEGXQS-rmHVQ2cSbW5_-XMQdKUlFxbAYX5J1Ew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 20 hours ago, DC Tom said: I'm thinking opinions didn't change, the polling questions were reframed by NY and VA. Well, they considered, “we should help living children live,” to be pro-life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts