Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
kestrel

Masks as magical thinking

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Taggart Transcontinental
2 hours ago, MontyPython said:

"silly word playing"??? Is a human fetus a buffalo? A fish? An apple? No of course not. It's A PERSON...a HUMAN person...and only the utterly retarded or those deliberately ignoring basic medical science could suggest otherwise.

:nuts: 

 

Oh now now, he's much smarter than you, he can parse words and keep that nonsense all up in his jumbled brain! You should know the intellectual power that is all leftists. A fetus does not become a person until it is given a name. Therefore you can just wantonly execute them at any time until you the parent accept ownership of them. If we treated children like they did in sparta then maybe we would have less social justice warriors?

Just a thought.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
17 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

Knowingly infecting sexual partners can lead to criminal prosecution.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV

I didn't say KNOWINGLY I said much like people that don't know they have wuhan, unintentionally spreading it. The young child indicated his willingness to prosecute people not wearing masks that pass the virus accidentally.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
7 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Oh now now, he's much smarter than you, he can parse words and keep that nonsense all up in his jumbled brain! You should know the intellectual power that is all leftists. A fetus does not become a person until it is given a name. Therefore you can just wantonly execute them at any time until you the parent accept ownership of them. If we treated children like they did in sparta then maybe we would have less social justice warriors?

Just a thought.

Yeah, LOL. What specifically caught my attention was the hilarious phrase about "silly word playing", ROFLMAO. That's precisely what the "pro-choicers" do in every abortion argument. As though calling it a "fetus" or a "zygote" or a "blastocyst" or whatever somehow makes it something "less" than a human person. It is, of course, idiotically silly word playing. Those sorts of terms are merely people in different stages of development, that's all. Like the differences between babies, toddlers, children, adolescents, teenagers, etc. They're ALL persons, just like fetuses & zygotes & blastocysts. 

B)

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
7 hours ago, MontyPython said:

Yeah, LOL. What specifically caught my attention was the hilarious phrase about "silly word playing", ROFLMAO. That's precisely what the "pro-choicers" do in every abortion argument. As though calling it a "fetus" or a "zygote" or a "blastocyst" or whatever somehow makes it something "less" than a human person. It is, of course, idiotically silly word playing. Those sorts of terms are merely people in different stages of development, that's all. Like the differences between babies, toddlers, children, adolescents, teenagers, etc. They're ALL persons, just like fetuses & zygotes & blastocysts. 

B)

 

If we told them that when they are born they aren't American's but instead are "undocumented" then suddenly the left would find their right to life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
2 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

If we told them that when they are born they aren't American's but instead are "undocumented" then suddenly the left would find their right to life!

:lol: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
21 hours ago, grimreefer said:

small.104474535_3620606707968725_1355267

Awesome Meme...I remember a cat fight between a couple of Femi-Nazi's and they were screeching this same crap and this big black dude said what about my right to rape you because you its inconvenient to wine and dine you..my body My Choice right?..."but but but what your doing involves damage to another body"..and he just stared at them..it was telling that they both shut up and slunk away 

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
15 hours ago, Ladybird said:

Knowingly infecting sexual partners can lead to criminal prosecution.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV

How many people have been successfully prosecuted for infecting someone else? real question?

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
On 8/7/2020 at 6:55 PM, AntonToo said:

Funny you bring that up, as HCQ has so far been yet another example of rightwingers denying basic medical science.

HCQ, according to serious studies, does not work against covid-19 as either treatment or prophylactic. FDA has revoked it's emergency use authorization of HCQ almost two months ago.

There is only one narrow not-yet completely counter to science use of HCQ in combination with zinc and etc in very early stages of infection. There are studies pending on that...but even if that narrow scenario pans out, if it takes a week for your Covid test to come back this cocktail is of very limted use.

 

Niether "Gender dysphoria" nor "Dehumanization of the human fetus..." are matters of basic medical science.

 

 

Your entire post is BS and mispelled gibberish.  

Question, Antoon...if a "serious study" is done later and shows that the anecdotal evidence of significant benefit, particularly when used as a prophylactic or early in the infection, are true, will you admit that you are wrong?

People saying that men can "be" women, and the reverse, is NOT a question of basic medical science?

A human fetus being a developing human life is NOT a question of basic medical science?

Both of those are, at their root, way more "basic" than whether a manufactured chemical compound is effective against what was likely a manufactured virus, neither of which are "basic" at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, JerryL said:

if a "serious study" is done later and shows that the anecdotal evidence of significant benefit, particularly when used as a prophylactic or early in the infection, are true, will you admit that you are wrong?

If you have 5 solid studies and a sixth one finds something radically different you certainly keep it in mind but treat it as an outlier and an asterisk. There is a peer-review process that will follow to narrow down the difference to certain factors that differentiated it from the rest.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
On 8/8/2020 at 2:06 AM, Natural Selection said:

By the same logic, I should be able to stomp on a Monarch Caterpillar, without remorse, because it hasn't reached it's final stage of development into a Monarch Butterfly.

monarch.gif

Life starts when the fire is lit and ends when the fire goes out. There are no stages of development along the timeline where it is morally acceptable to end a being's life without it's consent.

That''s just a false frame of the issue. You are not going to go to jail for deciding you don't want to keep a pet.

At issue is making it ILLEGAL for someone to be able to descide to terminate THEIR pregnancy. At issue are the rights of the mother VS the rights we may extend to the forming child.

As remorseful as we may feel about killing a fetus, we ought to feel even worse about government forcing the mother to continue to carry to term a child she does not want and is not ready for. It's cruel, unusual and yes, immoral.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
44 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

That''s just a false frame of the issue. You are not going to go to jail for deciding you don't want to keep a pet.

At issue is making it ILLEGAL for someone to be able to descide to terminate THEIR pregnancy. At issue are the rights of the mother VS the rights we may extend to the forming child.

As remorseful as we may feel about killing a fetus, we ought to feel even worse about government forcing the mother to continue to carry to term a child she does not want and is not ready for. It's cruel, unusual and yes, immoral.

At what point does someone become responsible for their own actions?  Don't go down the red herring of rape and incest, please.  Most people are willing to allow for abortions in those cases because they can have significant mental health issues for the victim and in most cases, all for rape, the sex was not informed and consensual.  I stipulate those right now.

So, a woman "does not want and is not ready for" a baby.  Soooo "not want" and soooo "not ready" that, should she get pregnant, she will kill the child.

The woman decides to engage in sexual intercourse ANYWAY, an act designed to create new life.  Choice 1.

She chooses to use or not to use birth control.  Choice 2.  If she chooses to use birth control, does she double up (or more) with, say, the pill and condoms? Choice 2a.

After having sex, she chooses to take or not to take the morning after pill.  Choice 3.

So, a minimum of 3 positive decision points where a different "choice" ends up with the woman having no child AND no abortion.  All of these positive decisions and actions the woman can take to ensure she doesn't end up with a pregnancy that she doesn't want sooo bad that she would kill her own baby to avoid it.  And, even after having admitted that "As remorseful as we may feel about killing a fetus" you want us to feel worse about the government NOT allowing her to kill her baby because she doesn't like the result of her choices despite her being responsible for it in the first place?

If you were at all remorseful about the death of a developing human child, you would not make that child pay for the deliberate choices of the mother that created him or her.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, JerryL said:

If you were at all remorseful about the death of a developing human child, you would not make that child pay for the deliberate choices of the mother that created him or her.

Ok so let me AGAIN explain why that is a false choice.

You can remorse the death, but less than remorsing to force someone to have to carry to term a child they don't want.

Before late in the pregnancy I support the parents desciding when they are ready to have a child. It's better for the parents, it's better for the children born and it's better for the society at large.

 

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
5 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Ok so let me AGAIN explain to you why that is a false choice.

You can remorse the death, but less than remorsing to force someone to have to carry to term a child they don't want.

Before late in the pregnancy I support the parents desciding when they are ready to have a child. It's better for the parents, it's better for the children born and it's better for the society at large.

 

You cut out and dodged the meat of my post.  You cut out all of the choices that the woman made KNOWING that they could lead to pregnancy.  When does she become responsible for her decisions?  Never?

Why is it more heartbreaking for woman, who made choices KNOWING she could get pregnant, to be held responsible for those choices than it is heartbreaking to deliberately kill a child (Which you just admitted that it was.  So you score a point there, even though I doubt that it was on purpose.) in order to avoid that responsibility?

As for the bold, are you saying that people are too stupid to take actions to prevent pregnancy when they know they don't want children?

Finally, I doubt that the dead child would have choice death over life...given the chance.  But nice for you to decide for them.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
7 hours ago, AntonToo said:

As remorseful as we may feel about killing a fetus, we ought to feel even worse about government forcing the mother to continue to carry to term a child she does not want and is not ready for. It's cruel, unusual and yes, immoral.

If a man does not want to make child support payments for 18 years for a child he does not want and is not ready for, would it be immoral for him to kill that child after it is born? Is it cruel, unusual, and immoral for the government to force him to make those payments for 18 years? A woman only has to carry a baby for 9 months. A man has to make child support payments for 18 YEARS. I'm not asking about our current laws. I'm asking you if it's immoral for him to kill the child at any time during those 18 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, JerryL said:

You cut out and dodged the meat of my post.  You cut out all of the choices that the woman made KNOWING that they could lead to pregnancy.  When does she become responsible for her decisions?  Never?

Why is it more heartbreaking for woman, who made choices KNOWING she could get pregnant, to be held responsible for those choices than it is heartbreaking to deliberately kill a child (Which you just admitted that it was.  So you score a point there, even though I doubt that it was on purpose.) in order to avoid that responsibility?

As for the bold, are you saying that people are too stupid to take actions to prevent pregnancy when they know they don't want children?

Finally, I doubt that the dead child would have choice death over life...given the chance.  But nice for you to decide for them.

I cut it out because it is irrelvant to my position. The vague standard of someone being or not being responsible enough that you set out is not of any legal practicality.

There are many reasons why someone who is responsible may want to end pregnancy and so to have government somehow investigate your personal life to determine if it should or should not allow you to end your pregnancy is a non-starter.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, JerryL said:

Finally, I doubt that the dead child would have choice death over life...given the chance.  But nice for you to decide for them.

You have it upside down. I don't decide for anyone, YOU DO by forcing them to have a child they don't want.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
10 hours ago, AntonToo said:

That''s just a false frame of the issue. You are not going to go to jail for deciding you don't want to keep a pet.

At issue is making it ILLEGAL for someone to be able to descide to terminate THEIR pregnancy. At issue are the rights of the mother VS the rights we may extend to the forming child.

As remorseful as we may feel about killing a fetus, we ought to feel even worse about government forcing the mother to continue to carry to term a child she does not want and is not ready for. It's cruel, unusual and yes, immoral.

 

Any woman who's not ready for a child, doesn't want a child, can't afford a child, etc, has no business engaging in sex in the first place. All your crazy excuses for murdering innocent children can't overcome that basic foundational fact. The woman has every moral right to refuse to have sex, but after voluntarily choosing to have sex, if she becomes pregnant she has no conceivable moral "right" to kill the baby.

If I don't want to pay for a new window for my neighbor's house, can't afford a new window, etc, then I obviously have no business throwing rocks at my neighbor's house. And that is the exact SAME reason why a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant has no business engaging in the act specifically designed to result in pregnancy.

B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

Any woman who's not ready for a child, doesn't want a child, can't afford a child, etc, has no business engaging in sex in the first place.

I like that you are keeping it real.

Nothing ever changes in life during the pregnancy. People don't change their mind, or lose partners, or jobs and a developing child never has a down syndrome or some other genetic or development issue.

True story.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
1 minute ago, AntonToo said:

I like that you are keeping it real.

LOL. So just like in that other thread a few minutes ago, all you're capable of is a childish "Oh yeah?" instead of actually attempting to address the facts.

Oh well, you're demonstrating why you're a leftist in the first place. They're all immature morons.

<_< 

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

You have it upside down. I don't decide for anyone, YOU DO by forcing them to have a child they don't want.

They were forced to have sex at gunpoint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

murdering innocent children

I don't think you understand what you are saying.

mur·der is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
Just now, Natural Selection said:

They were forced to have sex at gunpoint?

Probably not, but possible. Maybe you should just make your (already refuted) point intead of beating around the bush. 

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
Just now, AntonToo said:

Murder by definition cannot apply to not-persons.

 

And any suggestion a human baby, even before birth, "isn't" a person is so stupid it's beneath contempt.

<_< 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

 

And any suggestion a human baby, even before birth, "isn't" a person is so stupid it's beneath contempt.

<_< 

Behold Monty's poorly considered "person":

Zygote1.jpg

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...