End of Roe Vs Wade?

[JudgeRightly]

It is needless as you can respond on point without doing it

I do it for my own sanity, and so I'm not just responding to a wall of text. I also do it so that whoever reads my posts can follow along with my arguments, and not wonder what it is I'm replying to, something I've had to try to figure out by you NOT using the [ quote ] and [ /quote ] tags.

and I'm certainly not obligated to wade through a post that could address the arguments in a coupla paragraphs.

Why should I write several paragraphs when a line or two will suffice to every claim you make (without evidence, by the way)?

I prefer a conversation to a monologue.

You are being equally ridiculous with your warped nonsense about abduction in context as you are with your Hitler bunk.

This is called an ad hominem. Address my argument, not me.

As you're so fond of "responding" with:

False.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I've given reasons, unlike yourself.

WHO gives rights? (Correct answer: God).

Then what rights do you consider yourself to have? Is it not reasonable to construe that most of the laws we have are based on common sense and morality? Where do those come from? You might not have liked it but the comparison with those who believe they have a right to firearms is hardly Biblical.

 

[Right Divider]

Then what rights do you consider yourself to have?

Only the one's that God gives me. I have no "right to food" and neither does anyone else.

Is it not reasonable to construe that most of the laws we have are based on common sense and morality?

Again, you seem to think that you get to decide what is "common sense and morality".

Where do those come from?

In your case, from your vain imagination.

You might not have liked it but the comparison with those who believe they have a right to firearms is hardly Biblical.

The "right to a firearm" is fundamentally the right to self-defense. Do you have a problem with the right to self-defense?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then what rights do you consider yourself to have?

The most basic right, from which all other actual rights extend, is the right to life. As RD said, there is no "right to food," et al.

Is it not reasonable to construe that most of the laws we have are based on common sense and morality?

Common sense, no.

Morality comes from God.

Where do those come from?

Morality? Supra.

Common sense? Who knows.

You might not have liked it but the comparison with those who believe they have a right to firearms is hardly Biblical.

It's a "right to purchase and own personal defense weapons," not firearms, and it DOES come from the Bible.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I do it for my own sanity, and so I'm not just responding to a wall of text. I also do it so that whoever reads my posts can follow along with my arguments, and not wonder what it is I'm replying to, something I've had to try to figure out by you NOT using the [ quote ] and [ /quote ] tags.



Why should I write several paragraphs when a line or two will suffice to every claim you make (without evidence, by the way)?

I prefer a conversation to a monologue.



This is called an ad hominem. Address my argument, not me.



Saying it doesn't make it so.

My posts aren't a "wall of text". I generally try to keep replies concise and at most within a few paragraphs and certainly not some massive block of words so there really isn't any need to parse anywhere near you do.

You could easily reply with short paragraphs instead of parsing out sentences and even snipping them into several separate parts, that doesn't invite conversation.

It is not an 'ad hominem' to point out the ridiculousness of an opposing argument. Removing a child from an unsafe environment for his/her own protection is not kidnapping by any degree and can't be sustained by any reasonable standard.

False.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Only the one's that God gives me. I have no "right to food" and neither does anyone else.

Again, you seem to think that you get to decide what is "common sense and morality".

In your case, from your vain imagination.

The "right to a firearm" is fundamentally the right to self-defense. Do you have a problem with the right to self-defense?

Which ones are those then? If God imbues common sense and morality then what's the matter with most of the laws we have now? They're not of my making. I agree with most but not all. Why should you have the right to a firearm for self defense? Who said you or anyone else had the right to own a gun anyway? I have as much a problem with self defense as I do kids having the right to food and water.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The most basic right, from which all other actual rights extend, is the right to life. As RD said, there is no "right to food," et al.



Common sense, no.

Morality comes from God.



Morality? Supra.

Common sense? Who knows.



It's a "right to purchase and own personal defense weapons," not firearms, and it DOES come from the Bible.

Then if a newborn doesn't have the right to food and water then having the right to life is pretty pointless if the parents don't supply them and nobody else should step in.

You don't think that common sense comes from God? The ability to reason?

That's fair enough, especially for the time. How some seem to think it means they're entitled to buy semi automatics and whatnot is something else...

 

[JudgeRightly]

My posts aren't a "wall of text".

Because you're not viewing TOL in a mobile browser, which isn't as wide.

I generally try to keep replies concise and at most within a few paragraphs and certainly not some massive block of words so there really isn't any need to parse anywhere near you do.

Whatever.

You could easily reply with short paragraphs instead of parsing out sentences and even snipping them into several separate parts,

I snip them because you often make several claims within the same sentence, if your sentences aren't run-ons. I address each claim individually.

that doesn't invite conversation.

Whatever. It's just not how my brain works.

It is not an 'ad hominem' to point out the ridiculousness of an opposing argument.

Not what you did. You accused ME of being ridiculous, not my argument, which would have been an appeal to the stone:

You are being equally ridiculous

Don't use fallacies, period.

Removing a child from an unsafe environment for his/her own protection is not kidnapping by any degree

It is, by definition.

and can't be sustained by any reasonable standard.

It is, by definition, kidnapping.

False.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because you're not viewing TOL in a mobile browser, which isn't as wide.



Whatever.



I snip them because you often make several claims within the same sentence, if your sentences aren't run-ons. I address each claim individually.



Whatever. It's just not how my brain works.



Not what you did. You accused ME of being ridiculous, not my argument, which would have been an appeal to the stone:



Don't use fallacies, period.



It is, by definition.



It is, by definition, kidnapping.



Saying it doesn't make it so.

Okay, I'll try to take that into account but still, there's no need to snip sentences into three or more separate parts.

Fine, I should have said your argument as opposed to you but I've addressed that in my latter.

It really isn't. You might as well say that police are kidnapping someone if they remove them from their home as a suspect in a domestic violence incident. Context is key.

False. (See how easy it is to do that with you in turn when you constantly use such terms yourself?)

 

[Right Divider]

Which ones are those then?

God and God only give rights.

If God imbues common sense

Common sense isn't so common.

and morality then what's the matter with most of the laws we have now?

If the laws agree with the Bible, they are good.
If no, they are bad.

They're not of my making.

You agree with bad laws.

I agree with most but not all.

You are not the standard and neither am I... God is.

Why should you have the right to a firearm for self defense?

You are far dumber than I thought.

Who said you or anyone else had the right to own a gun anyway?

Who are you or anyone else to deny me a gun? Who put you in charge?

I have as much a problem with self defense as I do kids having the right to food and water.

 

[Arthur Brain]

God and God only give rights.

Common sense isn't so common.

If the laws agree with the Bible, they are good.
If no, they are bad.

You agree with bad laws.

You are not the standard and neither am I... God is.

You are far dumber than I thought.

Who are you or anyone else to deny me a gun? Who put you in charge?

Okay, I've tried to engage you in a conversation and instead of responding in kind you still resort to insults. That's on you. I don't deny you the right to own a gun either.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Which ones are those then?

All rights that stem from the right to life.

If God imbues common sense

He doesn't.

and morality then what's the matter with most of the laws we have now?

There's too many of them, which puts a burden on the innocent, and they violate God's standard of good.

They're not of my making.

No one said they were.

I agree with most but not all. Why should you have the right to a firearm for self defense?

To protect my right to life.

Who said you or anyone else had the right to own a gun anyway?

Jesus did.

I have as much a problem with self defense as I do kids having the right to food and water.

The problem is that one of those is a right, the other two are not.

Then if a newborn doesn't have the right to food and water then having the right to life is pretty pointless if the parents don't supply them

Therefore murder the baby?

and nobody else should step in.

No one said that "nobody else should step in."

It's the government that shouldn't step in.

You don't think that common sense comes from God?

"Common sense" amounts to situational ethics, and may or may not be correct.

The ability to reason?

Does come from God, for He is reason itself.

That's fair enough, especially for the time. How some seem to think it means they're entitled to buy semi automatics and whatnot is something else...

I'd like to see you take a sword to a gunfight. Tell me how that goes, will you?

Oh, you'd rather have a gun to defend yourself? Yeah, so would I.

 

[Right Divider]

Okay, I've tried to engage you in a conversation and instead of responding in kind you still resort to insults.

Toughen up buttercup.

That's on you.

Just being honest with you. Sorry that it hurts your feelings.

I don't deny you the right to own a gun either.

Thanks!!! I have a RIGHT to own a gun!!!

 

[Arthur Brain]

All rights that stem from the right to life.



He doesn't.



There's too many of them, which puts a burden on the innocent, and they violate God's standard of good.



No one said they were.



To protect my right to life.



Jesus did.



The problem is that one of those is a right, the other two are not.



Therefore murder the baby?



No one said that "nobody else should step in."

It's the government that shouldn't step in.



"Common sense" amounts to situational ethics, and may or may not be correct.



Does come from God, for He is reason itself.



I'd like to see you take a sword to a gunfight. Tell me how that goes, will you?

Oh, you'd rather have a gun to defend yourself? Yeah, so would I.

If there's nobody else to step in besides authorities then that child is going to die. There's nothing immoral about having authorities to step in whatsoever.

Common sense and reason go hand in hand. They may overlap on occasion but they're part of the same 'family'.

I'd have no need to take either a sword or a gun to a fight and saying that Jesus endorsed firearms is a stretch and then some. I'd rather live in a country that doesn't have such a destructive and fixated culture frankly. Oh, I actually do.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Toughen up buttercup.

Just being honest with you. Sorry that it hurts your feelings.

Thanks!!! I have a RIGHT to own a gun!!!

Oh dear, did you think you'd offended me by being predictably immature? It's more amusing than anything, especially as I'm taken to task for anything resembling an ad hominem around here.

If you don't or can't engage like an adult then don't, I sure ain't gonna lose sleep over it. Next doors yapping dog on a night takes care of that...

Just don't pretend that you're interested in an actual dialogue when you're not though.

No need to thank me, that's a right you have under law and never actually said that you shouldn't.

 

[JudgeRightly]

there's no need to snip sentences into three or more separate parts.

There is when you (or anyone) makes three or more separate claims in one sentence.

Fine, I should have said your argument as opposed to you but I've addressed that in my latter.

Again, that would have been an appeal to the stone.

Don't use logical fallacies, Arthur.

It really isn't.

Yes, it really is, by definition.

Do you need me to quote the definition again?

You might as well say that police are kidnapping someone if they remove them from their home as a suspect in a domestic violence incident.

It's not kidnapping if the police remove a suspect from a crime scene.

That's called an arrest.

Taking a child away from his parents is kidnapping because the child has done no wrong. What needs to happen is that the government needs to punish the irresponsible parent. Taking the child away from (an) irresponsible parent(s) punishes the child and rewards (in a sense) the parent(s). A good flogging would do wonders.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If there's nobody else to step in besides authorities

Why do you assume there isn't? There's almost 8 billion people on this planet. Surely one of them could step in.

then that child is going to die.

And if no one steps in, and the child dies, then the parents are guilty of murder through negligence, and should, upon conviction, be put to death.

There's nothing immoral about having authorities to step in whatsoever.

Yes, there is.

Common sense and reason go hand in hand. They may overlap on occasion but they're part of the same 'family'.

Common sense isn't common.

I'd have no need to take either a sword or a gun to a fight

They're becoming frightfully more and more common these days.

and saying that Jesus endorsed firearms is a stretch

Jesus endorsed purchasing and owning a weapon for self defense.

That includes firearms.

and then some.

Not really.

I'd rather live in a country that doesn't have such a destructive and fixated culture frankly. Oh, I actually do.

America used to have guns in almost everyone's hands, yet it wasn't a "destructive and fixated culture," frankly.

In fact, it was far safer back then than it is today, because criminals who had guns knew that the good guys had guns too, and so were less likely to commit violent crimes.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There is when you (or anyone) makes three or more separate claims in one sentence.



Again, that would have been an appeal to the stone.

Don't use logical fallacies, Arthur.



Yes, it really is, by definition.

Do you need me to quote the definition again?



It's not kidnapping if the police remove a suspect from a crime scene.

That's called an arrest.

Taking a child away from his parents is kidnapping because the child has done no wrong. What needs to happen is that the government needs to punish the irresponsible parent. Taking the child away from (an) irresponsible parent(s) punishes the child and rewards (in a sense) the parent(s). A good flogging would do wonders.

Of course the child has done no wrong, way to state the obvious. Removing the child from a neglectful and abusive environment isn't a punishment, it's anything but. If you think that parents are rewarded for neglect/abuse then think again. The child is taken into care where depending on the severity of the neglect/abuse he/she is given the essentials and sometimes hospital treatment. Ideal? Hardly but your alternative is to leave the child where he/she is?!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why do you assume there isn't? There's almost 8 billion people on this planet. Surely one of them could step in.



And if no one steps in, and the child dies, then the parents are guilty of murder through negligence, and should, upon conviction, be put to death.



Yes, there is.



Common sense isn't common.



They're becoming frightfully more and more common these days.



Jesus endorsed purchasing and owning a weapon for self defense.

That includes firearms.



Not really.



America used to have guns in almost everyone's hands, yet it wasn't a "destructive and fixated culture," frankly.

In fact, it was far safer back then than it is today, because criminals who had guns knew that the good guys had guns too, and so were less likely to commit violent crimes.

There's plenty of cases where there isn't and noting the number of people on the planet is hardly relevant. If you fall through a piece of ice in the arctic ocean then there ain't gonna be many of those 8 billion people around to help are there?

There's no good reason for a child in such circumstances to die, period, not when there's authorities that could be called in to prevent such a tragedy from coming about - which there are. What's immoral is depriving children in such situations outside help that could save their life.

Your gun culture hardly came about through the Bible and America has the most unenviable record in tragedies relating.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Removing the child from a neglectful and abusive environment isn't a punishment, it's anything but.

Removing a child from his parents is child abuse.

Punish the parents, don't abuse the child.

If you think that parents are rewarded for neglect/abuse then think again.

They are if the government takes their child that they don't really care about away. At the very least, the child they don't care about enough to neglect them being taken away means they have less of a burden on them.

The child is taken into care

Wrongfully so.

where depending on the severity of the neglect/abuse he/she is given the essentials and sometimes hospital treatment.

All of which should be taken care of by the parents, as part of their punishment for abusing or neglecting their child.

Ideal? Hardly but your alternative is to leave the child where he/she is?!

No. The alternative is to punish the parents in such a way that they fear going back to neglecting their child, so that they begin to take care of their child.

Flogging them for neglect/abuse (or execution if the child has died as a result of such), and forcing them to pay for any medical care needed to bring the child back up to health. That way the government doesn't have to scrounge up the money through taxing the people to pay for it.