Lon
Well-known member
Yes, loving or selfish promotion, both reveal exactly who we are.
Of course not. It is part of being a monster, Quip. Did you think Dracula would care about victims? :nono:
Against abortion and against person-hood?
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
That was my point. He is so cold-hearted an callous that he snaps off humorous vitriol in a tread that has little humor. It is as bad as making a joke about the holocaust.
Because none of this has nothing to do with abortion.
glassjester
Well-known member
It has to do with your rationalization of abortion.
You've been saying that it's justifiable for a woman to kill her unborn child because the unborn child's body encroaches upon the mother's body.
If I've misunderstood you, please correct me.
In my dumb example, the baby's body encroaches upon my body as well. Yet... you say I would not be justified in killing the baby, and the baby's body has not, in fact, encroached upon my body if I had to "sneak up on the baby and knock him unconscious."
So, why does the "sneaking up" part preclude any bodily encroachment on the part of the baby, in the events that follow?
Well, no it doesn't. This is in no way a parallel to an unborn fetus' sole reliance upon its mothers body nor reflect the physical realities of pregnancy.
But to entertain your very dumb analogy your "friend" would be the one attacking you with the baby's body. What's actually relevant here is your friend's attack upon your person and focus rather upon your methods at avoiding this instrument (unconscious baby) of attack instead of playing it as a silly "unconscious baby attack". (unconscious/attack - seems quite the oxymoron...don't you think?)
Yet, we could get even more dumb and say that this baby wasn't unconscious; was brandishing a knife, and came at you with the intent of cutting off your big toe. I'd say you'd have every right to opt for the death of this baby in defense of yourself. Correct?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
if a mother can't be bothered to care for her infant, do you have any problem with her neglecting it and allowing it to starve to death?
At this point the principle of encroachment remains irrelevant ...likewise your rhetoric.
glassjester
Well-known member
So the baby didn't encroach on my body, himself.
He was forced, by other people, into a situation where his body is encroaching upon mine?
Is that right?
No.
The baby is being used as a weapon in the act of your friend's encroachment upon you.
genuineoriginal
New member
You want to murder starving children as well as unborn children?
starving children?
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: Let's prove it:
For one who is all jokes and smiles regarding analogy, poor or not, it didn't even in the most casual sense, invite levity. Worse? You actually ran with it on a second-serious-note. For my benefit? In you analogy "the baby had a knife" is pretty ridiculous. Modern medical science tells us the mother is never in danger of life during a pregnancy any more. Analogy fail? Sure. Let's place the age of the child at 3 with a knife. You can't unarm even a three year child? Analogy fail, on every front. That at one time might have been a legitimate law-making concern. No longer. It is nothing but a mindless excuse now that you know better. The mother's life is 'never' in danger due to pregnancy any longer.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
nonsense - an infant is dependent on its mother for care
if she chooses not to be encroached upon and denies that care, can you say that she's wrong?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
those may not be conveniently available - meanwhile, that parasitic little blob of tissue (the infant in question) is encroaching on its mother's autonomy
Well? ...connect the abortion dots for me. I'm slow.
For starters... the fetus is not encroaching upon its mother's autonomy.
Once you get done beating straw... give me a ring.