End of Roe Vs Wade?

[Arthur Brain]

It shouldn't, because needs aren't rights.



Because it's not true.



The United Nations doesn't trump God.



False.

It should because a child should have the right to have essential needs met. Ideally with the parents providing them but if not through child protection services etc.

Because you say so? It is true and the UN isn't nor trying to "trump God" regardless. The charter looks out for the well being of children and afford them rights that those who supposedly care for children would have no problem with.

 

[Idolater]

Sigh. The glee in being able to scorn and control women through their sex lives seems to be the real motivator.

IF this were truly about saving the lives of children, the GOP and their misogynist groupies would be for reducing or eliminating the cost of healthcare as well as supporting birth control and sex education. Free tubal ligations would also be a top priority.

They do not have the moral high ground to preach abstinence considering their support of trump and the GOP.

You're a little "scrupulous", ask Anna what it means, she "has me on ignore". She doesn't "get" analogies, but she understands what scrupulosity is, I'm just saying you're analogous to being a little scrupulous, politically.

You get Roe overturned but you count it as anything but a huge moral win; because you're not also getting this laundry list of other policy preferences that you have.

Only one of them has to do with forbidding all the states from democratically deciding whether or not they will accept @Town Heretic 's reasonable policy proposal on the matter, thus saving probably 10-100 thousand babies this coming year, just due to the coincidental added effort required to travel to a legal abortion purveyor.

That's a huge win. It goes without saying. Or it should. Why aren't you happier about that? Your happiness about that, should really be overflowing whatever smaller victories you're not also concurrently experiencing, right? Don't you agree?

Yes this is a common refrain of the fourth wave feminist who is adamant that women should be allowed to be whores

I can be persuaded but I believe in that right, it is necessary in a land that recognizes the right to the pursuit of happiness, or ethical independence (a right that I believe in).

It's fantastically stupid to exercise that right, it is extremely ethically myopic, it's like jumping headlong into a ditch that takes decades to dig yourself back out of, before you can really said to be whole again (that's assuming you repent, you'll never be whole again if you don't repent and just stubbornly stay in the ditch all your life).

I passionately recommend against it; but I don't promote penalizing them for exercising the right with government. We all have the right to argue for our ethics, that's also part of ethical independence and the freedom of speech, so we can peacefully and lawfully attempt to crush, publicly, any argument set out in defense of this abject ethical error.

It's impossible to not see the error involved here. That's what we all believe. It's just not against the law to pretend to be blind on this mark; that's what I believe.

I can be persuaded.

It is

Your favorite whipping boy

They exist only in your fevered imagination

I'm all for reducing or eliminating the cost of healthcare. I heartily recommend that every leftist train in the field of healthcare and volunteer their services for free.

Starting with you rusha

Condoms can be bought in bulk for 20 cents each

Should be part of biology class in high school

Biology would be a great class to teach kids about the ethical reasoning for avoiding exercising this right as being part of a prosperous and successful (Happy) life. People will complain, like they are now about Roe, that it's coming from religion and it's violating separation of Church and State (all rhetorical narrative), but it's accurately stated, just applying ice cold logic to ice cold facts.

Do not exercise this right, and do not fall for anybody attempting to persuade you to. This should be taught in biology. This is objectively good ethics, biologically good for you. Do you want to fall into a pit that takes decades to crawl back out of? Of course you don't. Nobody wants you to do that. Even your biology teacher.

Except, bad people attempt to persuade you to do that. Proud, people, perhaps. Your biology teacher could teach you this ethical lesson.

Start training. Get certified. Provide them.

Those who recognize the evil of murdering the unborn child hold the moral high ground

Abstinence should be the norm for unmarried couples

Which means a number of things, only one of which is that boys needs to stop consuming ΠΟΡΝography right away; right now. It's another right that I believe we have, and that I similarly think is an unethical (because it defeats a boy's pursuit of happiness) self-destructive choice.

You don't really give a crap about abortion. You don't give a crap about unborn children being ripped to pieces in utero.
This is only about your hatred for Trump and the GOP. Because you're sick.

Honestly I would rather that former President Trump wasn't the guy, but I need a Republican to win more than I need to have all my druthers.

 

[Idolater]

It should because a child should have the right to have essential needs met. Ideally with the parents providing them but if not through child protection services etc.

Because you say so? It is true and the UN isn't nor trying to "trump God" regardless. The charter looks out for the well being of children and afford them rights that those who supposedly care for children would have no problem with.

Rights don't impose positive obligations on other people, only negative ones. That's the difference. It's totally fine morally to democratically decide to provide subsidized social welfare in whatever proportion a polity wishes. That doesn't mean rights are decided democratically; they are not. A good government recognizes and protects the rights.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Rights don't impose positive obligations on other people, only negative ones. That's the difference. It's totally fine morally to democratically decide to provide subsidized social welfare in whatever proportion a polity wishes. That doesn't mean rights are decided democratically; they are not. A good government recognizes and protects the rights.

Not exactly sure where you're going with only negative obligations honestly. With regards to children then there have to be protective measures in place to ensure they have their essential needs met - ergo, rights. A loving, responsible parent will meet those needs and wouldn't see such as an obligation anyway. Say for example that you're accused of something. You have the right to a fair trial and not to be found guilty in some kangaroo court. Do you agree with your having that right?

 

[Idolater]

Not exactly sure where you're going with only negative obligations honestly. With regards to children then there have to be protective measures in place to ensure they have their essential needs met - ergo, rights. A loving, responsible parent will meet those needs and wouldn't see such as an obligation anyway. Say for example that you're accused of something. You have the right to a fair trial and not to be found guilty in some kangaroo court. Do you agree with your having that right?

The right to due process, right. Also the right to vote. The right to an attorney. Yes. I understand. It's confusing. Some of these are like, political rights. What you and JR and RD are arguing about are human rights. Human rights are pre-political. They do not and cannot change due to any political situation. They survive the establishment of a politics. And human rights impose negative obligations on all the rest of us.

In order for a regime to be able to protect our human rights, there are certain features you have to have. The rights to due process and to suffrage etc. are all part of that, moral government. In order for a government to truly protect your rights, you have certain political rights.

But even then, being entitled to three square meals a day, clean water and shelter, these aren't even political rights. These can only be provided by subsidization of social welfare that's intended to protect vulnerable people. And there's nothing wrong with it, but to call these things rights is confusing.

 

[ok doser]

Women

Do you mean real women, or what the ridiculously woke left now can't even define? Women with beards and testicles?

homosexuals

Should be executed

non-Christians

You mean people who pretend to be Catholic like you?

minorities

My ethnic and gender identification places me in a cohort of 30.48% of the total population of the United States. Much much less when calculated globally.

You're talking about me you silly girl

They want social control.

Everybody wants social control

Could backfire on them, though.

It's possible

They think there will be a red wave in November.

All the indicators are pointing to it.
All the polls are pointing to it.

I don't think so.

Of course not. You're insane.

 

[ok doser]

Rights don't impose positive obligations on other people, only negative ones. That's the difference. It's totally fine morally to democratically decide to provide subsidized social welfare in whatever proportion a polity wishes. That doesn't mean rights are decided democratically; they are not. A good government recognizes and protects the rights.

The declaration of Independence guarantees me the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My happiness can only be achieved with the following and I demand that the United Nations provides me with it right now, or I am oppressed.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It should

Saying it doesn't make it so.

because a child should have the right to have essential needs met.

No. A child has the right to life. That life should be protected by his parents, by them providing what he needs to live.

Beyond that, nothing is guaranteed.

Ideally with the parents providing them

This can be achieved without a government program.

but if not through child protection services etc.

This is said government program.

Because you say so?

No, because it IS so.

It is true

No.

and the UN isn't nor trying to "trump God" regardless.

They do by asserting "Article 24."

The charter looks out for the well being of children and afford them rights that those who supposedly care for children would have no problem with.

Proverbs 12:10:
A righteous man regards the life of his animal,
But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

With regards to children then there have to be protective measures in place to ensure they have their essential needs met

Those protective measures are called "mother" and "father."

Those protective measures are not called "government welfare."

ergo, rights.

Nope. Needs are not rights, no matter how many times you assert it.

A loving, responsible parent will meet those needs

And they will do so without any need for government welfare.

However, when you introduce government welfare, you make it easy for those who WON'T meet those needs readily, especially if it means sacrificing something relatively less important, to abandon their responsibility to be a loving and responsible parent to their children.

and wouldn't see such as an obligation anyway.

Yup. But when you take that obligation away (for it is indeed an obligation, even if loving parents don't see it as such) by having the government pick up the slack, the parents feel they can add more slack, and it only harms the child (funding issues for such a governmental program aside which harms society).

Say for example that you're accused of something. You have the right to a fair trial and not to be found guilty in some kangaroo court. Do you agree with your having that right?

Having a right to a fair trial does not change the facts that needs are not rights.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Shouting doesn't help your argument.

I'm not shouting. I'm frustrated because this is so easy to understand, yet you show no interest in even trying to understand.

Leaving your baby outside in freezing temperatures is not murder unless you intentionally stop to kill the baby before leaving it outside in freezing temperatures.

NO.

Leaving one's baby outside in freezing temperatures is not murder, period.

Refusing to bring them back inside (or to provide warmth to the baby) shows intent.

For example, lets say it's the middle of winter in Canada, and a raging fire breaks out because the stove was accidentally left on.

Bringing your baby outside and leaving him there, so that you can go back inside and put the fire out without risking the baby's life, IS. NOT. MURDER!

That's as close as an analogy as I can think of! The only difference being that our society has been bogged down by darwinian eugenics and the need to kill the baby for convenience's sake that we haven't developed a way to bring the baby back inside the house once the fire has been put out!

Delivering the baby from the mother's body IS NOT KILLING THE BABY. The baby lives for however long afterwards. The ONLY reason the baby dies is because we don't have the medical know-how to put the baby back INTO mom once the fire has been put out in her body. But we don't even get THAT FAR, because the doctors kill the baby before he dies.

I'm gonna end my participation in the conversation with this:

the science is clear: ectopic pregnancies are not viable, there’s currently no way to transplant them, and if left alone, they can and do result in a pregnant person’s death.

The only reason is because no one wants to love the baby anymore, let alone TRYING to put baby back in the mother's womb.

They only think about killing him.

 

[Jefferson]

Free tubal ligations would also be a top priority.

You just became the enemy of Planned Parenthood. Free tubal ligations would bankrupt them.

 

[JudgeRightly]

A loving, responsible parent will meet those needs

And they will do so without any need for government welfare.

However, when you introduce government welfare, you make it easy for those who WON'T meet those needs readily, especially if it means sacrificing something relatively less important, to abandon their responsibility to be a loving and responsible parent to their children.

In other words: By providing such welfare programs, you encourage irresponsible and unloving parents to be more unloving and irresponsible, because they know the government will pick up the slack.

That's EXTREMELY unhealthy for society.

 

[Idolater]

The declaration of Independence guarantees me the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My happiness can only be achieved with the following and I demand that the United Nations provides me with it right now, or I am oppressed.

View attachment 3858

Yes, you get it.

 

[ok doser]

Yes, you get it.

Yay!

 

[Hoping]

The declaration of Independence guarantees me the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My happiness can only be achieved with the following and I demand that the United Nations provides me with it right now, or I am oppressed.

View attachment 3858

Maybe if you cozy up to the Russians you will get those rights you so earnestly deserve?
Tell them the nazi's at the boat store won't give you credit.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Saying it doesn't make it so.



No. A child has the right to life. That life should be protected by his parents, by them providing what he needs to live.

Beyond that, nothing is guaranteed.



This can be achieved without a government program.



This is said government program.



No, because it IS so.



No.



They do by asserting "Article 24."



Proverbs 12:10:
A righteous man regards the life of his animal,
But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.



Those protective measures are called "mother" and "father."

Those protective measures are not called "government welfare."



Nope. Needs are not rights, no matter how many times you assert it.



And they will do so without any need for government welfare.

However, when you introduce government welfare, you make it easy for those who WON'T meet those needs readily, especially if it means sacrificing something relatively less important, to abandon their responsibility to be a loving and responsible parent to their children.



Yup. But when you take that obligation away (for it is indeed an obligation, even if loving parents don't see it as such) by having the government pick up the slack, the parents feel they can add more slack, and it only harms the child (funding issues for such a governmental program aside which harms society).



Having a right to a fair trial does not change the facts that needs are not rights.

Denying it doesn't make it false. Please get some new soundbites...

Effectively you're pro-birth, not pro life. Nothings guaranteed even with protective measures in place but if you deny a newborn child the rights to essentials then frankly, you may as well be pro-abort for all you ever cared for the child's well being.

We agree that the needs should be met by the parents but this is reality and not all parents are going to be up to or even interested in their obligation. Some are downright abusive. So what then? Should the state not intervene at all? Are you still going to claim that it's "kidnapping" if child protection services step in to take a child away from such an abusive environment? Does a child not have the right to be free from abuse?

Are such services "wicked" to step in and cater for the child's needs? You can quote all manner of Bible verses, it doesn't mean they apply as to how you interpret and you're being absolutely ridiculous in regards to UN charters that seek only to protect children and look out for their welfare. There's nothing "ungodly" or akin about that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

In other words: By providing such welfare programs, you encourage irresponsible and unloving parents to be more unloving and irresponsible, because they know the government will pick up the slack.

That's EXTREMELY unhealthy for society.

Why, because you say so?

This is just typical hyperbole and soundbite. Many on the lower end of the social ladder in terms of income are reliant on subsidies, it doesn't make them irresponsible or some such and the doing away with them would increase the poverty rate in society exponentially. That would include children suffering as a result. There's already so much poverty on the lower end as it is but hey, so what, right?

 

[Arthur Brain]

The right to due process, right. Also the right to vote. The right to an attorney. Yes. I understand. It's confusing. Some of these are like, political rights. What you and JR and RD are arguing about are human rights. Human rights are pre-political. They do not and cannot change due to any political situation. They survive the establishment of a politics. And human rights impose negative obligations on all the rest of us.

In order for a regime to be able to protect our human rights, there are certain features you have to have. The rights to due process and to suffrage etc. are all part of that, moral government. In order for a government to truly protect your rights, you have certain political rights.

But even then, being entitled to three square meals a day, clean water and shelter, these aren't even political rights. These can only be provided by subsidization of social welfare that's intended to protect vulnerable people. And there's nothing wrong with it, but to call these things rights is confusing.

It's not confusing on a moral level. It might be couched in terminology but if a child has the right to be born then what use is that if the child doesn't have the right to essentials to sustain life post birth? How much of a double standard is going on there?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Effectively you're pro-birth, not pro life.

False.

Nothings guaranteed even with protective measures in place

So why go with something that teaches parents to be less responsible and loving to their children, something you have completely ignored so far.

but if you deny a newborn child the rights to essentials

There's no such thing.

then frankly, you may as well be pro-abort for all you ever cared for the child's well being.

Says the one who thinks killing the baby is an option.

I want the parents to be responsible and care for their child(ren).

They can't do that if A) the child is dead before birth, nor can they do it if B) the government does it for them, which irresponsible and uncaring parents WILL let them do.

We agree that the needs should be met by the parents but this is reality and not all parents are going to be up to or even interested in their obligation.

Then don't reinforce that behavior by taking away the consequences of their actions, by having the government step in.

Some are downright abusive. So what then? Should the state not intervene at all?

Correct. That responsibility lies with family members, or if none, family friends, or if none, the neighbors.

Are you still going to claim that it's "kidnapping" if child protection services step in to take a child away from such an abusive environment?

Yes.

Does a child not have the right to be free from abuse?

A child has the right to life, and his parents have a responsibility to raise, care, and protect their child.

If the parents are abusing their child, then the government steps in to punish the PARENTS, not the child.

Taking the child away from the parents, even if they are scum, only punishes the child, and teaches the parents who don't care about their child anyways that they can get away with abusing their child.

The punishment for abusing ones child should be flogging, not taking the child away.

Are such services "wicked" to step in and cater for the child's needs?

Yes, because it teaches the child that when he's a parent, he can abandon his responsibilities as one and the government will make all his problems go away.

You can quote all manner of Bible verses, it doesn't mean they apply as to how you interpret and you're being absolutely ridiculous in regards to UN charters that seek only to protect children and look out for their welfare. There's nothing "ungodly" or akin about that.

How about I quote something else then?

Do you agree with the following statements/sentiments:

"The government must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people."
"The government's concern belongs more to the child than to the adult."
"The government's financial irresponsibility turns the blessing of children into a curse for the parents."

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why, because you say so?

No, because it IS so.

Such things are destructive to society.

This is just typical hyperbole and soundbite.

No, it's not.

Many on the lower end of the social ladder in terms of income are reliant on subsidies,

Because they've gotten used to living on the government's teat, instead of working harder to provide for themselves. Or in the case of women, relying on a man to provide for her, while she cares for her children.

it doesn't make them irresponsible or some such and the doing away with them would increase the poverty rate in society exponentially.

It doesn't just make them irresponsible.

It makes them lazy, and more dependent on the government to care for them, when that money could be used on other things, such as infrastructure and criminal justice, while they provide for themselves.

That would include children suffering as a result. There's already so much poverty on the lower end as it is but hey, so what, right?

The reason there's so much poverty is because the government is trying to take care of everyone. Get the government OUT of everything, and everything becomes much cheaper, and people make way more. Problem solved, at least as far as finances are concerned.

 

[Arthur Brain]

False.



So why go with something that teaches parents to be less responsible and loving to their children, something you have completely ignored so far.



There's no such thing.



Says the one who thinks killing the baby is an option.

I want the parents to be responsible and care for their child(ren).

They can't do that if A) the child is dead before birth, nor can they do it if B) the government does it for them, which irresponsible and uncaring parents WILL let them do.



Then don't reinforce that behavior by taking away the consequences of their actions, by having the government step in.



Correct. That responsibility lies with family members, or if none, family friends, or if none, the neighbors.



Yes.



A child has the right to life, and his parents have a responsibility to raise, care, and protect their child.

If the parents are abusing their child, then the government steps in to punish the PARENTS, not the child.

Taking the child away from the parents, even if they are scum, only punishes the child, and teaches the parents who don't care about their child anyways that they can get away with abusing their child.

The punishment for abusing ones child should be flogging, not taking the child away.



Yes, because it teaches the child that when he's a parent, he can abandon his responsibilities as one and the government will make all his problems go away.



How about I quote something else then?

Do you agree with the following statements/sentiments:

"The government must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people."
"The government's concern belongs more to the child than to the adult."
"The government's financial irresponsibility turns the blessing of children into a curse for the parents."

I don't go with anything that "teaches" parents to be irresponsible or less loving to their children. That's just a load of bunk of your own making and a feeble excuse for you denying children basic rights. Frankly, you are mired in your own ideology and there's not much point in even trying to shift it, let alone waste a whole load of time trying to. Wasted enough already. My argument has been made and repeating it would be a further exercise in futility. Children, rightfully and lawfully have rights. Your contrary opinion on the matter is thankfully irrelevant.