End of Roe Vs Wade?

[Idolater]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541933924728709120

 

[Arthur Brain]

Exactly how have I "denied" them anything?

So you now understand that life beginning at conception is an irrefutable scientific fact?

You are in principle if you argue or agree with those who express that a child has no inalienable rights once born such as the essentials needed in order to survive. That makes you pro birth not pro life.

From fertilization. And? Doesn't alter my position where couples who are using contraception use plan b drugs where an unexpected pregnancy happens in the early stages. You can condemn them if you want, I'm not.

 

[Right Divider]

You are in principle if you argue or agree with those who express that a child has no inalienable rights once born such as the essentials needed in order to survive. That makes you pro birth not pro life.

You are confused. Rights are not magically granted by other humans (even the great and benevolent AB).

I think that all children should be given 10 million dollars, so that they can have a great life. Any objections?

From fertilization. And?

What's your point? Life begins, irrefutably and scientifically proven, at conception. When the sperm impregnates the egg. Why do you doubt this obvious FACT.

Doesn't alter my position where couples who are using contraception use plan b drugs where an unexpected pregnancy happens in the early stages.

The "early stages" are still AFTER conception. i.e., AFTER a HUMAN LIFE has begun.

You can condemn them if you want, I'm not.

Indeed, I will always condemn the murder of an innocent human life.
You, on the other hand, want to exterminate an innocent human person (i.e., murder) for convenience sake.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are confused. Rights are not magically granted by other humans (even the great and benevolent AB).

I think that all children should be given 10 million dollars, so that they can have a great life. Any objections?

What's your point? Life begins, irrefutably and scientifically proven, at conception. When the sperm impregnates the egg. Why do you doubt this obvious FACT.

The "early stages" are still AFTER conception. i.e., AFTER a HUMAN LIFE has begun.

Indeed, I will always condemn the murder of an innocent human life.
You, on the other hand, want to exterminate an innocent human person (i.e., murder) for convenience sake.

Not at all. Children have those rights over here and there's nothing magical about it. It's part of the law. If you disagree that children should have those rights then you are most assuredly not pro life.

How am I 'doubting' it when I've just expressly said from fertilization? You confused or something?

Nope, I don't but carry on with that self righteous stuff if you want.

 

[Right Divider]

Not at all. Children have those rights over here and there's nothing magical about it. It's part of the law.

WHO granted these rights? Perhaps you are completely ignorant to the fact that real rights come from God. I guess that you speak for God now.

Our government (the USA) is founded on the principle of GOD GIVEN rights. There are no others.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Note that LIFE is the first one mentioned and for good reason!

If you disagree that children should have those rights then you are most assuredly not pro life.

You keep spouting nonsense. All children should be given 10 million dollars to insure those "rights" that you have granted them... agreed?

How am I 'doubting' it when I've just expressly said from fertilization? You confused or something?

Fertilization and conception are the same thing. Any intentional death of a child AFTER conception is... MURDER.

Nope, I don't but carry on with that self righteous stuff if you want.

That's funny coming from the one that grants children rights IF and ONLY IF they can escape the womb.

 

[Arthur Brain]

WHO granted these rights? Perhaps you are completely ignorant to the fact that real rights come from God. I guess that you speak for God now.

Our government (the USA) is founded on the principle of GOD GIVEN rights. There are no others.

Note that LIFE is the first one mentioned and for good reason!

You keep spouting nonsense. All children should be given 10 million dollars to insure those "rights" that you have granted them... agreed?

Fertilization and conception are the same thing. Any intentional death of a child AFTER conception is... MURDER.

That's funny coming from the one that grants children rights IF and ONLY IF they can escape the womb.

Perhaps you're ignorant to your own double standard if you advocate that a child has a right to be born but not to essentials needed to live post birth. Laws changed that stopped things such as child labour so that a bad thing to you? Laws were introduced that required children to have their essential needs met, ideally by the parents but if not then state intervention.. You most certainly aren't pro life if you think that a child doesn't have the right to essentials.

As expected it's the usual hyperbole with the latter. I didn't agree with the abortion laws as they stood but you carry on as you will. Pointless.

 

[annabenedetti]

Perhaps you're ignorant to your own double standard if you advocate that a child has a right to be born but not to essentials needed to live post birth. Laws changed that stopped things such as child labour so that a bad thing to you? Laws were introduced that required children to have their essential needs met, ideally by the parents but if not then state intervention.. You most certainly aren't pro life if you think that a child doesn't have the right to essentials.

As expected it's the usual hyperbole with the latter. I didn't agree with the abortion laws as they stood but you carry on as you will. Pointless.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of those who would deny social safety nets for mother and baby after the baby is born.

As an aside: apparently requests for vasectomies and tubal ligations have increased in Texas since the ruling, with some clinics reporting that requests have tripled.

 

[annabenedetti]

What about nonviable pregnancies?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541916121741377538

 

[Right Divider]

Perhaps you're ignorant to your own double standard if you advocate that a child has a right to be born but not to essentials needed to live post birth.

All children should be given 10 million dollars! Anything less does not guarantee their future! Agreed?

Laws changed that stopped things such as child labour so that a bad thing to you?

No... any other side shows that you'd like to try to deflect with?

Laws were introduced that required children to have their essential needs met, ideally by the parents but if not then state intervention..

So the parent are just let off the hook and every one else is penalized? Got it... that's great responsibility management.

You most certainly aren't pro life if you think that a child doesn't have the right to essentials.

You do not get to grant rights, no matter how noble you think that it makes you.
You think that children should be murdered instead.

As expected it's the usual hyperbole with the latter.

It's not hyperbole at all. You have advocated for the death of children if they cannot be guaranteed a glorious future by government edict.

I didn't agree with the abortion laws as they stood but you carry on as you will. Pointless.

Join those of us that think murder is wrong.

 

[Arthur Brain]

All children should be given 10 million dollars! Anything less does not guarantee their future! Agreed?

No... any other side shows that you'd like to try to deflect with?

So the parent are just let off the hook and every one else is penalized? Got it... that's great responsibility management.

You do not get to grant rights, no matter how noble you think that it makes you.
You think that children should be murdered instead.

It's not hyperbole at all. You have advocated for the death of children if they cannot be guaranteed a glorious future by government edict.

Join those of us that think murder is wrong.

Funny how you equate a child having the rights to essentials needed in order to survive to being entitled to a huge sum of money. One of your more bonkers comparisons frankly. If a child lacks the essentials that you and I need in order to live then said child is going to suffer and die as children can't provide for themselves.

Why? If a child shouldn't have the right to essentials post birth then why is the repeal of child labour a good thing to you? That's way more on point than your ridiculous 10 million dollars garbage.

Funny, I recall saying that ideally the child's needs would be met by the parent but in case you hadn't noticed not all parents are up to the task so what then? Just bad luck of the draw for the kid? If there's no other recourse but for outside intervention for the wellbeing of the child then what would you prefer, child protection services stepping in or the child being left to rot?

Sure it's hyperbole and nowhere have I said anything that resembles your silly 'glorious future by government edict'. Ideally, there'd be no need for any form of state intervention with regards to child welfare but sadly there is.

Already do thanks.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You want to force people to live

Under a righteous law

by what you believe

What I believe has nothing to do with it.

to be government imposed laws

Yes, only the government has the right to impose laws.

that comport to your beliefs.

Again, my beliefs have nothing to do with this.

That's akin to religious tyranny.

No one has said anything about religion but you, Arty.

This is the West where personal freedom and liberty is valued.

"Personal freedom and liberty" does not include murdering the innocent.

If you think you can "force" people into your particular brand of "morality"

I can't force anyone into anything. The government, however, can.

then you are woefully misguided. Force does not change other people's values or beliefs that differ to yours.

Having good laws protects the innocent and punishes the guilty, while still allowing people to believe what they want.

That does not mean, however, that if people believe that they should be allowed dispose of inconvenient children without facing consequences, that they should be allowed to.

Just because people are attracted enough to have sex doesn't equate to their being compatible for a long term relationship.

Then they shouldn't be having sex, should they?

Sex is for when two people are committed to each other and want to have children.

It's not intended to be a recreational event.

Other people's sex lives are nobody else's business

Only if the people in question are married to each other.

Otherwise, yes, it is the government's business, because the natural result of sex is the conception of a child.

and forcing, say, a teenage couple to marry is an abrogation of their human rights.

Again, if they don't want to get married, then they shouldn't be having sex.

They give up the right to not be married the moment they have sex without being married. And because it's more loving to the child for him to have both parents in his home, if that teen couple breaks up, they care more about convenience than they do about the child.

That's why the government should force those who have sex outside of marriage to marry and never divorce, because it's cruel to the child to allow it.

It also teaches the rest of society that there are consequences to having sex, the biggest being that a child is conceived.

Your argument is effectively around the lines of 'might makes right'.

Wrong.

It's the reverse. "Right makes might."

When you have good laws, the nation is blessed.

It's completely up to men and women whether they get married and have sex or don't.

Marriage and sex are not mutually exclusive items.

If two people have sex, it should only be within marriage.

If a person doesn't want to marry, then abstinence is their only option.

If two people want to marry, but not have sex, then that's totally fine.

If two people want to have sex, but not marry, that is wrong, and they should, if caught, be forced to marry, because it would be cruel to any children that are conceived as a result of their lust.

Marriage doesn't magically make a stable family union in itself by any stretch.

What I'm saying seems to be going over your head, Arty.

NEVER NOT ONCE have I said that a two-parent family will ALWAYS WITHOUT FAIL be stable.

What I have said is that when both the father and the mother are around, it is a far better environment than any single-parent home, because of the division of labor between husband and wife. And I have given you the stats to prove it.

It is BETTER for both mother and father to be in the same home, than is a broken family.

Why should the child face the repercussions of irresponsible, neglectful and abusive parents and die as a result when there was help available that could have prevented that?

They shouldn't, because the parents of that child SHOULD be responsible, which is why if a child dies as a result of neglect, it is considered murder by neglect, and the parents should be executed, which will deter other parents from neglecting their children.

Again, you keep trying to attack this issue in a vaccuum, but it won't work because there's more to it than just "the child dies as a result of neglect."

The government's role is not to take care of people from cradle to grave. It's to provide infrastructure (both to allow people to thrive, and to allow it to enforce the law), and criminal justice (both foreign and domestic).

It literally does not have the bandwidth necessary to take care of every child that's being neglected, and doing so would put too much strain on it that would prevent it from doing well only what it SHOULD be doing in the first place.

Is that child just collateral damage?

No.

You don't pity the child caught up in unhealthy environments at all JR,

Yes, I do.

else you would either step in yourself if you could

Now you're moving the goalposts.

We're talking about the government, here, not me personally.

If I could, I would step in, no question.

That does not mean, however, that the government should be the one to step in.

or stand aside and let those who could help do their job

Once again, it is not the government's job to take care of people from cradle to grave.

and give that child what they need.

What a child needs is for his parents to care for him.

The government CANNOT fill that role, no matter how hard it tries.

Failure to allow authorities to take a child in danger

You mean to kidnap them?

Yeah, in case you weren't aware, kidnapping is a capital offence, and kidnappers should be executed.

into care and allowing that child to die as a result

Supra, re: bandwidth.

Parents who kill their children through neglect should be executed, as a deterrent against other parents who neglect their children.

makes you just as culpable for that child's death as it could have been avoided.

You're trying to make this personal.

Stop it. It's not going to work.

There are already laws that make neglectful and abusive parenting serious crimes

They're not harsh enough. If they were, parents wouldn't neglect their children near as much as you think they do.

and such wouldn't magically disappear with your proposals.

All it would take is one execution of parents who killed their child through neglect for it to become a non-issue ever again. And it probably wouldn't ever reach that point, if all convicted criminals guilty of capital crimes were executed prior to that, because that alone would be enough of a deterrent.

The government does indeed have a responsibility in regards to the welfare of children and rightly so

No, it doesn't, and saying it does doesn't make it so.

Nobody's arguing that marriage is a bad thing here,

Liar. You yourself are saying that it's sometimes bad, and that some single parents do it better.

rather pointing out that healthy environments don't necessarily have that paradigm.

It is FAR HEALTHIER of an environment for a child to have both parents in the home than just one, even if they're bad parents.

Well aware that none of what you've said has come from other countries

Then don't make the straw man of it.

but the underpinning religious extremism is more than evident.

I'm not talking about religion.

I'm talking about what a good government would look like.

You can't force people to be caring and responsible JR.

No, but the government can force people to follow the law, which is why it's so important to have good laws, especially if they promote responsibility and care.

Some people are simply unfit to be parents

Yet there's no possible way to know that until they become parents, and trying to determine such things would result in tyranny.

and children need to be removed from them

Children should NEVER be removed from their parents (barring cases of divorce and/or capital crimes).

Why do you want to punish the children rather than the parents for the crime of the parents?

before worse case scenarios can happen.

You can't predict the future, much less the government can.

If there's a responsible relative willing to do so then great, if not then protection services need to step in.

Nope, the government has no business interfering except when a crime is committed.

A child has the rights to food, water, shelter, warmth, education, period.

False. Period.

Those are needs, not rights.

Carry on with those derogatory slurs towards women who aren't chaste

I'm not the one who came up with the idea to call them that, Arty.

That's what they are!

When a woman acts promiscuously, she is, by definition, a slut.

When she does the same for money, that makes her, by definition, a whore.

as you will.

Supra.

They're human beings AFAIC.

Which is why I'm not calling them animals. Though, when they act like animals, then there's very little in the way preventing one from doing so.

Women are equal to you.

Only as far as the law is concerned.

Otherwise, they are not.

They're at least equal to you in terms of capabilities also.

Nope. Men are better than women at some things, and women are better at men at other things.

Take sports for example, why do you think it's such a big deal when a tranny male participates and wins in a women's sporting competition, despite claiming to be female and having relatively little practice in the sport?

It's because men and women ARE different, and they are NOT equal in everything.

You should reflect on your pride and arrogance where it comes to your thinking you are a spokesperson for God. You aren't.

I don't have to be a spokesperson for God to know that He knows your thoughts, and that he doesn't approve of them, Arthur.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I guess that you speak for God now.

He's quite a hypocrite, isn't he?

You should reflect on your pride and arrogance where it comes to your thinking you are a spokesperson for God. You aren't.

 

[Right Divider]

Funny how you equate a child having the rights to essentials needed in order to survive to being entitled to a huge sum of money. One of your more bonkers comparisons frankly. If a child lacks the essentials that you and I need in order to live then said child is going to suffer and die as children can't provide for themselves.

My point is that I'm offering much more than you.

Why? If a child shouldn't have the right to essentials post birth then why is the repeal of child labour a good thing to you?

Because you're going off on tangents as if you've had a point. You haven't.

That's way more on point than your ridiculous 10 million dollars garbage.

You're unable to get a simple point.

Funny, I recall saying that ideally the child's needs would be met by the parent but in case you hadn't noticed not all parents are up to the task so what then? Just bad luck of the draw for the kid?

We all have different good fortune. Don't we? Your answer is to force others to pay the bill.

If there's no other recourse but for outside intervention for the wellbeing of the child then what would you prefer, child protection services stepping in or the child being left to rot?

There are many others that should take up the slack, like the grandparents that raised an irresponsible child.
Your "government" solution is classically wrong as it breeds more of the same problem. Deadbeat parents are not held responsible but those that are not responsible are forced to be made responsible.

Sure it's hyperbole and nowhere have I said anything that resembles your silly 'glorious future by government edict'. Ideally, there'd be no need for any form of state intervention with regards to child welfare but sadly there is.

Dead children need no support. That is what abortion does... murders children.

 

[Right Divider]

He's quite a hypocrite, isn't he?

And completely blind to it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

JR, I am not gonna wade through yet another needlessly drawn out post that's been parsed to bits point by point. I'll touch on a coupla as frankly, this is just repetitive and predictably going nowhere.

Child protection services intervening when a child is in danger is not 'kidnapping' so that was ridiculous.
Executing irresponsible parents does nothing for the child that's died as a result of neglect, nor does it magically make parents suddenly all loving and attentive. This is reality, not la la land.
Children can and should have the right to essentials. Arguing contrary is hypocritical as your concern for life clearly ends once outside of the womb.

You no more 'know' what God approves of with my thoughts than you do with anyone else's. Get over yourself.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you think that God implemented a double standard then that bizarre claim alone should have given you pause for thought. Why on earth would God do that?!

To protect the dignity of the woman.

Where in the name of sanity do you get the notion that men are designed to have a stronger sex drive than women? Seriously, where?

From reality.

This is stuff that could have come off the back of a crisp packet JR and in no way reflects reality.

False.

Women and men do not have differing degrees of sex drive or emotion.

Yes, they do, generally speaking.

This sort of gender stereotyping has been kicked into touch for years now.

False.

Sure, in years past women have often been portrayed as the nurturing while men are the macho breadwinners etc but we don't live in 1958 anymore...

So what?

You are in principle if you argue or agree with those who express that a child has no inalienable rights once born

No one is saying this.

In fact, we're saying the child has the inalienable right to life, from which all other (actual) rights extend, and from conception, not just birth.

such as the essentials needed in order to survive.

Needs are not rights.

I have the same need to eat that newborns do. That doesn't mean that I have the right to take the food that you just bought from your cart at the grocery store as you walk back to your vehicle.

That makes you pro birth not pro life.

Yet we're the one's advocating that the parents take care of their children both before and after birth, while you're saying it's ok to just kill the baby.

Who's really pro-life here, Arty, you or us?

... couples who are using contraception use plan b drugs where an unexpected pregnancy happens in the early stages.

There is nothing "unexpected" about pregnancy after sex. It's literally what I've been saying this entire time in this thread!

THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF SEX IS THE CONCEPTION OF A BABY!

How much clearer do we have to make it?

No, what you really meant to say (but you were too embarrassed to because it completely validates my and RD's position) is "couples who are using contraception use plan b to kill an unwanted baby that was conceived because they couldn't control their lust."

You can condemn them if you want, I'm not.

We can justly condemn them (and the makers of the "morning after pill") for murder of an innocent child.

They will answer to God on judgement day for it.

Perhaps you're ignorant to your own double standard if you advocate that a child has a right to be born but not to essentials needed to live post birth.

There's no double standard, because needs and wants are not rights.

Laws were introduced that required children to have their essential needs met, ideally by the parents but if not then state intervention..

Which punishes society for the incompetence of some, which is wrong.

You most certainly aren't pro life if you think that a child doesn't have the right to essentials.

Needs are not rights.

The right to life IS a right.

You want to kill the baby.

We want the baby to live (pro-life) and for the parents to be responsible and take care of their baby (also pro-life).

At no point is governmental intervention part of it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Child protection services intervening when a child is in danger is not 'kidnapping'

Taking a child away from his parents is, by definition, kidnapping.

so that was ridiculous.

Appeal to the stone.

Executing irresponsible parents does nothing for the child that's died as a result of neglect,

False.

It provides justice for his death, and deters other parents from neglecting their children.

nor does it magically make parents suddenly all loving and attentive.

Nice straw man.

This is reality, not la la land.

Duh.

Children can and should have the right to essentials.

Needs are not rights.

A childs needs should be met by his parents. The government cannot fulfill the role of the parents.

Arguing contrary is hypocritical as your concern for life clearly ends once outside of the womb.

False, on both counts.

You no more 'know' what God approves of with my thoughts than you do with anyone else's. Get over yourself.

Sure I do. He tells us what His thoughts are in the Bible. You've told us what your thoughts are (mostly) via TOL.

It's not hard to compare the two.

And since God is always right, and Arthur is a fallible human being, we know that if your thoughts conflict with what God has said, then we know He doesn't approve.

I shouldn't have had to explain that to you, but I did.

 

[Arthur Brain]

My point is that I'm offering much more than you.

Because you're going off on tangents as if you've had a point. You haven't.

You're unable to get a simple point.

We all have different good fortune. Don't we? Your answer is to force others to pay the bill.

There are many others that should take up the slack, like the grandparents that raised an irresponsible child.
Your "government" solution is classically wrong as it breeds more of the same problem. Deadbeat parents are not held responsible but those that are not responsible are forced to be made responsible.

Dead children need no support. That is what abortion does... murders children.

Of course you aren't. If you deny measures that ensure a child has essentials in order to live then any sum of money down the line isn't going to be of any use to them if they've died of malnutrition.

It was directly related and made a salient point.

A child should't have to rely on 'good fortune'. If it's born to responsible parents that supply all essentials then great. If not, then that child should still have the right to the very same else the alternative is what? Leave the child to rot? There isn't always a relative on standby to take up the slack and even then there's no guarantee that they'd be up to the task either. "Force others to pay the bill"? Wow, that's your beef? I've no problem with paying taxes to ensure there's child protection services to step in if a child is being mistreat. If you truly cared about children you'd have no problem with that either.

 

[Arthur Brain]

To protect the dignity of the woman.



From reality.



False.



Yes, they do, generally speaking.



False.



So what?



No one is saying this.

In fact, we're saying the child has the inalienable right to life, from which all other (actual) rights extend, and from conception, not just birth.



Needs are not rights.

I have the same need to eat that newborns do. That doesn't mean that I have the right to take the food that you just bought from your cart at the grocery store as you walk back to your vehicle.



Yet we're the one's advocating that the parents take care of their children both before and after birth, while you're saying it's ok to just kill the baby.

Who's really pro-life here, Arty, you or us?



There is nothing "unexpected" about pregnancy after sex. It's literally what I've been saying this entire time in this thread!

THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF SEX IS THE CONCEPTION OF A BABY!

How much clearer do we have to make it?

No, what you really meant to say (but you were too embarrassed to because it completely validates my and RD's position) is "couples who are using contraception use plan b to kill an unwanted baby that was conceived because they couldn't control their lust."



We can justly condemn them (and the makers of the "morning after pill") for murder of an innocent child.

They will answer to God on judgement day for it.



There's no double standard, because needs and wants are not rights.



Which punishes society for the incompetence of some, which is wrong.



Needs are not rights.

The right to life IS a right.

You want to kill the baby.

We want the baby to live (pro-life) and for the parents to be responsible and take care of their baby (also pro-life).

At no point is governmental intervention part of it.

Um, no, you do not get this ridiculous concept that men are designed to have higher sex drives than women from reality JR, you really don't....it's one of the funnier things you've said lately but waaaay off the mark.

I'm not going to reply more to drawn out parsed out posts like this either. Had enough of that when TH used to do it...

 

[Arthur Brain]

And completely blind to it.

And another irony meter shuffles off its mortal coil...