Pro-life and Democrat

[ok doser]

some pullouts from last night's go-round between quip and JR:

Your argument/analogy CAN'T consider the woman's POV in this scenario ..lest you'll give credence to her situation, her capacity to choose....

"her situation, her capacity to choose" - both are equally valid before birth and after birth

and yet, before birth you would allow the consideration of her situation and her capacity to choose

and after birth you would deny the consideration of her situation and her capacity to choose

Legally and morally she does have the right to (choose abortion)...

you are correct in the former

how do you support your assertion in the latter?

mor·al /ˈmôrəl/ adjective adjective: moral 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. synonyms: virtuous, good, righteous, upright, upstanding, high-minded, principled, honorable, honest, just, noble, incorruptible, scrupulous, respectable, decent, clean-living

in what way is it virtuous, good, righteous, upright, upstanding, high-minded, principled, honorable, honest, just, noble, incorruptible, scrupulous, respectable, decent, clean-living to kill your unborn child?

On the contrary. It's my desire that every choice chooses life. I'm simply not arrogant enough to presume that choice for her.

and yet, you are arrogant enough to presume that right for her after the child is born

can you explain why?

 

[Right Divider]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Your argument is not with me John, it's with Libertarians (this place is overrun with them) that believe the selfish concept of not sacrificing their values for the benefit of others.

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others...
https://www.lp.org/platform/

Now if any supposed pro life Libertarians want to step forward (this place is overrun with them) and explain how one can embrace the selfish concept of Libertarianism and yet be anti-abortion at the same time, I look forward to the debate.

Which is a biological fact. The baby wouldn't exist without the mother, and has nothing to with the debate.

Again, your argument is not with me John, it's with the Libertarians running amuck throughout TOL (is one pretending to be many, or is there a little tribe of them?) who embrace Libertarian doctrine which says:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

Going through with an unwanted pregnancy is "sacrificing for the benefit of others" in the Libertarian world.

Hence, you can't be pro life and a Libertarian.

Ever the liar, you are.

The child conceived inside the woman has RIGHTS that EVERY human has, the RIGHT TO LIFE.

 

[ok doser]

Ever the liar, you are.

The child conceived inside the woman has RIGHTS that EVERY human has, the RIGHT TO LIFE.

this is what acw takes issue with:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

apparently acw doesn't consider the unborn child to be an individual

 

[Stripe]

You are correct in the former.

No, he's not.

The law says "do not murder."

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

No, he's not.

The law says "do not murder."

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

i'm not talking about God's Law (and neither is quip)

we're both talking about the corrupt law that man devised

except quip doesn't recognize it as corrupt

 

[Stripe]

i'm not talking about God's Law (and neither is quip)

we're both talking about the corrupt law that man devised

except quip doesn't recognize it as corrupt

Anything that contradicts God's standards is no law.

Call it a regulation.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[quip]

once again quip, i'll ask you:

if you think there are significant differences (between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn), by all means list them.

doser can't seem to differentiate between a fetus and a newborn thus, he makes spurious claims equating the two.

Why stop comparisons at the newborn stage doser? Not enough emotional appeal in comparing a fetus to a crusty old 70 year old man?

If you'd stop dodging the physiological circumstances and differences between incipient life and newborn life...then we can have a constructive conversation. But you won't do that...you simply pride yourself in making nice sounding declarations.

If you change your tactics...lemme know. You know where to find me.

 

[ok doser]

doser asks, clearly and succinctly:

if you think there are significant differences (between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn), by all means list them.

quip squirms:

doser can't seem to differentiate between a fetus and a newborn thus, he makes spurious claims equating the two....

nope - i haven't done that

quip deflects:

If you'd stop dodging the physiological circumstances and differences between incipient life newborn life...

nope, not doing that either

quip misdirects:

...you simply pride yourself in making spurious declarations....

haven't done that either quip

nope, for the the last three days all i've been doing is trying to get you to list the significant differences that you believe exist between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn


and you've been doing your darnedest to avoid doing that, as we've seen above




so, once more - no spurious claims, no dodging, no spurious declarations - just the same direct question to you quip - if you think there are significant differences (between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn), by all means list them.

 

[quip]

some pullouts from last night's go-round between quip and JR:

"her situation, her capacity to choose" - both are equally valid before birth and after birth

No they're not. Learn the difference.

and after birth you would deny the consideration of her situation and her capacity to choose

Yep.

you are correct in the former

how do you support your assertion in the latter?

One is in her womb...the other not. It's the difference that's key to her rights.

mor·al /ˈmôrəl/ adjective adjective: moral 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. synonyms: virtuous, good, righteous, upright, upstanding, high-minded, principled, honorable, honest, just, noble, incorruptible, scrupulous, respectable, decent, clean-living

Relative:
adjective

considered in relation to something else; comparative: the relative merits of democracy and monarchy.
existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent: Happiness is relative.
having relation or connection.
having reference or regard; relevant; pertinent (usually followed by to ): to determine the facts relative to an accident.
correspondent; proportionate: Value is relative to demand.
(of a term, name, etc.) depending for significance upon something else: “Better” is a relative term.

in what way is it virtuous, good, righteous, upright, upstanding, high-minded, principled, honorable, honest, just, noble, incorruptible, scrupulous, respectable, decent, clean-living to kill your unborn child?

How is it morally correct to deny a woman bodily autonomy? Is it morally permissible to force an unwanted child into poverty, abuse, neglect. Is it morally corect to force a woman into single-motherhood before she's capable of caring for another on her own. Is it morally acceptable to demand a child wrought from rape be birthed by the victim...all for the sake of your moral pretensions?

and yet, you are arrogant enough to presume that right for her after the child is born

can you explain why?

Presuming her right to make her own choices regarding her body is being arrogant? :chuckle: if you say so doser.

 

[quip]

doser asks, clearly and succinctly:




quip squirms:

nope - i haven't done that

quip deflects:

nope, not doing that either

quip misdirects:

haven't done that either quip

nope, for the the last three days all i've been doing is trying to get you to list the significant differences that you believe exist between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn


and you've been doing your darnedest to avoid doing that, as we've seen above




so, once more - no spurious claims, no dodging, no spurious declarations - just the same direct question to you quip - if you think there are significant differences (between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn), by all means list them.

doser continues to dodge by grandstanding in lieu of causal fact....

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

Going through with an unwanted pregnancy is "sacrificing for the benefit of others" in the Libertarian world.

Hence, you can't be pro life and a Libertarian.

Ever the liar, you are.

Play nice ...Dante, aka, aka, aka...

The child conceived inside the woman has RIGHTS that EVERY human has, the RIGHT TO LIFE.

Which is why one can't embrace Libertarian philosophy/doctrine and still be pro life ("for the benefit of others" meaning other people or Judeo-Christian doctrine, i.e. God).

Thank you for help making my point.

 

[ok doser]

if you think there are significant differences (between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn), by all means list them.

doser continues to dodge.....

well, one of us is

but i'm patient

whenever you're ready,

please list the significant differences that you feel exist between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn

 

[quip]

well, one of us is

but i'm patient

whenever you're ready,

please list the significant differences that you feel exist between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn

I have...repeatedly.

 

[quip]

but i'm patient

If stubbornness and being willfully ignorant are the metrics for this discussion...then you win doser. Congrats! :up:

 

[ok doser]

...Your argument/analogy CAN'T consider the woman's POV in this scenario ..lest you'll give credence to her situation, her capacity to choose...

"her situation, her capacity to choose" - both are equally valid before birth and after birth...

No they're not. Learn the difference.

teach me the difference

Is it morally corect to force a woman into single-motherhood before she's capable of caring for another on her own.

aren't you giving validity to "her situation" post delivery here? If a single mother decides she's not capable of caring for another on her own, what is your justification for denying her the "capacity to choose" to terminate her infant's life?

 

[ok doser]

please list the significant differences that you feel exist between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn

I have...repeatedly.

no, you listed one, once: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...and-Democrat&p=5281896&viewfull=1#post5281896


which I demonstrated was not valid: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...and-Democrat&p=5281898&viewfull=1#post5281898


Quip - do you believe there is a significant difference between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn?

 

[quip]

teach me the difference

No. I'm not your keeper...ask mommy.

aren't you giving validity to "her situation" post delivery here? If a single mother decides she's not capable of caring for another on her own, what is your justification for denying her the "capacity to choose" to terminate her infant's life?

It's ex-utero.

 

[Right Divider]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

Going through with an unwanted pregnancy is "sacrificing for the benefit of others" in the Libertarian world.

Hence, you can't be pro life and a Libertarian.

Once AGAIN, you LIE by leaving out a crucially important DETAIL..

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others...
https://www.lp.org/platform/

By consistently leaving that out, you are a habitual liar.

Play nice ...Dante, aka, aka, aka...

I'm just telling the truth, unlike you.

Which is why one can't embrace Libertarian philosophy/doctrine and still be pro life ("for the benefit of others" meaning other people or Judeo-Christian doctrine, i.e. God).

You are just amazingly stupid.

Thank you for help making my point.

You are just a confused liar. A model for godliness, you are not.

 

[ok doser]

It's ex-utero.

right, that's a given

what is it about being ex-utero that makes you willing to deny a mother the right to choose?

what quality has the newborn gained in being born that makes you willing to ignore the mother's situation and her capacity to choose?

they still exist - her situation is still a factor in her life, and she still retains her capacity to choose, as shown by those mothers who choose to kill their infants

what difference has occurred by virtue of the baby's birth that causes you to no longer take into account the mother's "situation and her capacity to choose" and allow her the right to choose to kill her infant?

why is consideration of her "her situation, her capacity to choose" valid before birth and invalid after birth?

 

[quip]

right, that's a given

what is it about being ex-utero that makes you willing to deny a mother the right to choose?

what quality has the newborn gained in being born that makes you willing to ignore the mother's situation and her capacity to choose?

they still exist - her situation is still a factor in her life, and she still retains her capacity to choose, as shown by those mothers who choose to kill their infants

what difference has occurred by virtue of the baby's birth that causes you to no longer take into account the mother's "situation and her capacity to choose" and allow her the right to choose to kill her infant?

why is consideration of her "her situation, her capacity to choose" valid before birth and invalid after birth?

She can't abort if it's ex-utero. The unwanted use of her body/womb is now irrelevant.