End of Roe Vs Wade?

[Arthur Brain]

Nope, we certainly want them to have all the best. But it's not a "right" no matter how much you screatch.

And your answer is to murder them instead. So sweet.

Yeah, it is. No stretching needed. Don't like how we have laws that afford people rights? Boo hoo, suck it up and deal with it.

Nope, but only to be expected from you really.

 

[Right Divider]

Yeah, it is. No stretching needed.

Sorry, I misspelled "screeching".

Don't like how we have laws that afford people rights?

Not "rights" that don't exist.

Boo hoo, suck it up and deal with it.

Nope, but only to be expected from you really.

AB is so righteous in his own eyes.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sorry, I misspelled "screeching".

Not "rights" that don't exist.



AB is so righteous in his own eyes.

Was wondering what you were aiming for although I presumed you meant screeching. No need for that on my part either. I leave that to those who have such a bee in their bonnet over kids having rights.

They do exist, that's the point. Don't like that? So what?

The irony...

 

[Right Divider]

Was wondering what you were aiming for although I presumed you meant screeching. No need for that on my part either. I leave that to those who have such a bee in their bonnet over kids having rights.

Kids have the same rights as everyone else. I don't have the right to everything under the sun and neither do they.

They do exist, that's the point. Don't like that? So what?

Nope.

The irony...

You're the king of irony on TOL.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Kids have the same rights as everyone else. I don't have the right to everything under the sun and neither do they.

Nope.

You're the king of irony on TOL.

Nobody's arguing that anyone has rights to everything under the sun but children and adults have rights, as it should be, simple as.

Nah, that crown belongs to several others around here, not that they recognize it half the time...

 

[Right Divider]

Nobody's arguing that anyone has rights to everything under the sun but children and adults have rights, as it should be, simple as.

Yes, the right to life is everyone's right... even those in the womb.

Nah, that crown belongs to several others around here, not they recognize it half the time...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, the right to life is everyone's right... even those in the womb.

The right to essentials once born along with your right to own a gun presumably...

 

[Right Divider]

The right to essentials once born along with your right to own a gun presumably...

Nope... you're getting more retarded with every post that you make.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Denial of what?

Did you lose track of the conversation or something?

Children have rights, adults have rights

Correct.

Those rights do not include food, water, shelter, et al.

and any functioning society affords its citizens rights,

Correct.

whether it be the right to food

No such thing.

or a fair trial.

Correct.

You say "So what?" and the exact same can be reversed, so you disagree, so what? Your opinion can be dismissed because that's all it is.

My opinions have nothing to do with this.

There's a reason why laws become established over time and that's because in the main they make sense and for the mutual good.

And who determines what is "in the main," who determines what makes sense, and who determines what "the mutual good" is? You?

You can consider laws we have wicked all you want, so what?

Because ideas have consequences.

That's what.

Nobody else is obliged to.

They should.

Applying Bible verses is all well and good but not so much when they don't support your position.

But they do.

A righteous man would raise the alarm if he suspected parents of abusing/neglecting their child and notify appropriate authorities.

Yup.

He sure wouldn't leave the child to the "tender mercies" of the parents without taking action.

Talk about missing the point...

It is also not kidnapping when authorities investigate said cases and when appropriate remove the child from neglect and abuse and see they get the care they need.

Investigating is fine, so long as the parents are punished if they are found to be in the wrong.

However, it is indeed kidnapping when the authorities take the child away from his parents, and it will only harm the child, especially psychologically.

Don't you care about the child, Arty?

Your quote from Paul is entirely irrelevant to children as newborns can hardly work for their supper can they?

If you can't see the problem with your response to what I said, then I can't help you.

I'm hardly responsible for what you seem to think so woeful for society.

To the extent that the worldview you promote is made reality, and how much you are part of promoting it, you are responsible.

Frankly, women having way more independence than times past is a good thing

I'm not talking about women's independence. If a woman wants to work, that's fine.

But she should, for the sake of her children, if she wants to have children, get married to a man who can provide for her, so that she can focus on raising her children.

If she doesn't want to raise children, then she shouldn't be having children. That means, not being promiscuous.

and it's telling that you emphasize the reliance a woman should have on a man anyway.

Why is it a bad thing for a woman to rely on a man if she has children?

Entirely up to women if they want a traditional marriage or other.

Yup. But her options are (and should be)...
A) have children after getting married
B) don't get married, and never have sex outside of marriage.

Seriously, if you're reduced to comparing my agreement with the law that children should have rights with Hitler

What you said IS, in fact, only a few steps away from what Hitler said, Arty. If you don't like that, then maybe you should rethink your position.

then that's clutching at straws that have already escaped your grasp.

False.

As has already been explained to you multiple times, most parents will responsibly take care of their children's needs not because of some perceived obligation or fear of penalty if they don't but simply because they want to raise a family and do well by them.

Again, the law was not made for the righteous. It was made for the wicked.

Having services that are there for children who are unlucky to have abusive parents is responsible.

No, it's not.

How you construe supporting laws that protect children in instances like that with wanting the government to provide rather than the parents is either dishonest or betrays a complete want of reading comprehension on your part. It's not an 'either/or' which frankly, should be obvious.

Straw man.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope... you're getting more retarded with every post that you make.

Oh dear, reduced to insults already?

It's a telling irony that there's plenty who bleat on about their right to bear arms and yet kids having rights to food and water causes such consternation...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Did you lose track of the conversation or something?



Correct.

Those rights do not include food, water, shelter, et al.



Correct.



No such thing.



Correct.



My opinions have nothing to do with this.



And who determines what is "in the main," who determines what makes sense, and who determines what "the mutual good" is? You?



Because ideas have consequences.

That's what.



They should.



But they do.



Yup.



Talk about missing the point...



Investigating is fine, so long as the parents are punished if they are found to be in the wrong.

However, it is indeed kidnapping when the authorities take the child away from his parents, and it will only harm the child, especially psychologically.

Don't you care about the child, Arty?



If you can't see the problem with your response to what I said, then I can't help you.



To the extent that the worldview you promote is made reality, and how much you are part of promoting it, you are responsible.



I'm not talking about women's independence. If a woman wants to work, that's fine.

But she should, for the sake of her children, if she wants to have children, get married to a man who can provide for her, so that she can focus on raising her children.

If she doesn't want to raise children, then she shouldn't be having children. That means, not being promiscuous.



Why is it a bad thing for a woman to rely on a man if she has children?



Yup. But her options are (and should be)...
A) have children after getting married
B) don't get married, and never have sex outside of marriage.



What you said IS, in fact, only a few steps away from what Hitler said, Arty. If you don't like that, then maybe you should rethink your position.



False.



Again, the law was not made for the righteous. It was made for the wicked.



No, it's not.



Straw man.

After this I'm not replying further unless you quit with the needless parsing. Children have and should have rights, your insistence otherwise can summarily be dismissed. People aren't bound by your self righteous parameters of what they should and shouldn't do. It is not kidnapping if protection services remove a child from abusive parents, it's absolutely the responsible thing to do and if you cared about a child who was being abused then you'd support their being taken into care. My position is nowhere near anything Hitler said so it's not a case of 'not liking it', it's simply sheer bunk on your part.

 

[Idolater]

Natural human rights impose moral negative obligations on everybody else. No one can morally violate your rights without justification. When you (and the French, who invented the idea) impose positive obligations on everybody, those aren't natural human rights anymore. They are government services, subsidies. Nothing wrong with them, but it damages through dilution, distraction and confusion the notion of absolute human rights.

 

[JudgeRightly]

After this I'm not replying further unless you quit with the needless parsing.

It's not needless. It exposes the flaws in your arguments.

Children have and should have rights,

I have never said otherwise.

your insistence otherwise can summarily be dismissed.

I don't insist otherwise.

What I say is that they don't have the rights YOU think they should have.

People aren't bound by your self righteous parameters of what they should and shouldn't do.

It's not self-righteous.
They aren't my parameters, they're God's.

And yes, people ARE bound by God's standard, whether they want to be or not.

It is not kidnapping if protection services remove a child from abusive parents,

Yes, by definition:

Kidnapping - the action of abducting someone and holding them captive.

That is exactly what the government does to children when the government think that a parent isn't being a responsible parent.

it's absolutely the responsible thing to do

No, it's not.

and if you cared about a child who was being abused then you'd support their being taken into care.

I do. But not by the government.

My position is nowhere near anything Hitler said

Yes, it is, Arthur. Denying it won't change that fact.

so it's not a case of 'not liking it', it's simply sheer bunk on your part.

No, it's not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's not needless. It exposes the flaws in your arguments.



I have never said otherwise.



I don't insist otherwise.

What I say is that they don't have the rights YOU think they should have.



It's not self-righteous.
They aren't my parameters, they're God's.

And yes, people ARE bound by God's standard, whether they want to be or not.



Yes, by definition:

Kidnapping - the action of abducting someone and holding them captive.

That is exactly what the government does to children when the government think that a parent isn't being a responsible parent.



No, it's not.



I do. But not by the government.



Yes, it is, Arthur. Denying it won't change that fact.



No, it's not.

It is needless as you can respond on point without doing it and I'm certainly not obligated to wade through a post that could address the arguments in a coupla paragraphs. You are being equally ridiculous with your warped nonsense about abduction in context as you are with your Hitler bunk. As you're so fond of "responding" with:

False.

 

[Right Divider]

Oh dear, reduced to insults already?

I know that the truth bothers you.

It's a telling irony that there's plenty who bleat on about their right to bear arms and yet kids having rights to food and water causes such consternation...

You are unwilling to see anything.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I know that the truth bothers you.

You are unwilling to see anything.

The truth that you're reduced to insults instead of an argument? Why would that bother me? It's kinda expected with you.

Oh, the...well, ya know...

 

[ok doser]

It's not needless. It exposes the flaws in your arguments.



I have never said otherwise.



I don't insist otherwise.

What I say is that they don't have the rights YOU think they should have.



It's not self-righteous.
They aren't my parameters, they're God's.

And yes, people ARE bound by God's standard, whether they want to be or not.



Yes, by definition:

Kidnapping - the action of abducting someone and holding them captive.

That is exactly what the government does to children when the government think that a parent isn't being a responsible parent.



No, it's not.



I do. But not by the government.



Yes, it is, Arthur. Denying it won't change that fact.



No, it's not.

I have a right to the bass boat of my choice! And I demand that the government recognize my right and provide it to me!

 

[Right Divider]

The truth that you're reduced to insults instead of an argument?

You don't listen to arguments, nor make them.
You believe that your opinion is the only thing that matters.

Why would that bother me? It's kinda expected with you.

You like to monologue instead of dialogue.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You don't listen to arguments, nor make them.
You believe that your opinion is the only thing that matters.

You like to monologue instead of dialogue.

Wrong, but "you" seem so self assured in your opinion that I'll leave ya to it.

 

[Right Divider]

Wrong, but "you" seem so self assured in your opinion that I'll leave ya to it.

I've given reasons, unlike yourself.

WHO gives rights? (Correct answer: God).