accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:23 am
So religious maniac Imran Can is too scared to interact with an actual woman, on something that only affects women. Gosh. I wonder why.
Who's an actual woman here? The names are mostly misleading anyway. So there's no way for me to know.
But actually, you're right that abortion affects women more than men; more pre-born females are murdered than pre-born males, and more minorities than whites, as well. But you'd be wrong to imagine it does not affect men.
In any case, your objection would be silly. It would be the same as saying, "Slavery only affects slave-owners, so nobody else can have an opinion about slavery." The issue of the rightness or wrongness of an act is debatable by anybody.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:01 am
Not "conflating." Nothing mistaken. Nothing equivocal. Everything clear.
I'm outright identifying it as murder, because that's exactly what it is. It's the killing of an innocent human person, by the woman who created her in the first place, and who, by all rights, should be her most loving and reliable protector. It's an unconscionable, wicked deed.
How much more strongly can one put it?
Nope.
If any law define a abortion as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.
If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.
So that's clearly not the case.
It was still murder according to German law. Why don't you go back to school like a good boy.
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:23 am
So religious maniac Imran Can is too scared to interact with an actual woman, on something that only affects women. Gosh. I wonder why.
Who's an actual woman here? The names are mostly misleading anyway. So there's no way for me to know.
But actually, you're right that abortion affects women more than men; more pre-born females are murdered than pre-born males, and more minorities than whites, as well. But you'd be wrong to imagine it does not affect men.
In any case, your objection would be silly. It would be the same as saying, "Slavery only affects slave-owners, so nobody else can have an opinion about slavery." The issue of the rightness or wrongness of an act is debatable by anybody.
It wouldn't be like that at all, little man. Go back to your child porn.
If any law define a abortion as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.
If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.
So that's clearly not the case.
It was still murder according to German law.
No, not once the Nazis were writing the laws. The same happened in the Soviet Union...and "enemy of the state" could be designated and murdered with impunity...and millions were. All very legal. And the same in China and North Korea, right now.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:35 am
If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.
So that's clearly not the case.
It was still murder according to German law.
No, not once the Nazis were writing the laws. The same happened in the Soviet Union...and "enemy of the state" could be designated and murdered with impunity...and millions were. All very legal. And the same in China and North Korea, right now.
So you're just wrong. Sorry.
You were talking about the definiton of 'murder', dimwit.
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:23 am
So religious maniac Imran Can is too scared to interact with an actual woman, on something that only affects women. Gosh. I wonder why.
Who's an actual woman here? The names are mostly misleading anyway. So there's no way for me to know.
But actually, you're right that abortion affects women more than men; more pre-born females are murdered than pre-born males, and more minorities than whites, as well. But you'd be wrong to imagine it does not affect men.
In any case, your objection would be silly. It would be the same as saying, "Slavery only affects slave-owners, so nobody else can have an opinion about slavery." The issue of the rightness or wrongness of an act is debatable by anybody.
It wouldn't be like that at all, little man.
Actually, the parallel is good. Like slavers, aborters begin by de-humanizing their victims. The slavers called them "animals," and the aborters call them "clusters of cells." Then they can feel good about doing something very evil.
But whether blacks are human beings, or whether pre-born children are human beings, will not be settled by word games and feats of creative imagination. The truth is the truth, regardless of whether or not the dehumanizer in each case is willing to recognize it. And every woman who aborts knows that what she is desperate to prevent is the life of a person. It's the existence of the child she's trying to eradicate, not a mere "cluster of cells." A mere "cluster of cells" could never demand anything of her.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:39 am
Who's an actual woman here? The names are mostly misleading anyway. So there's no way for me to know.
But actually, you're right that abortion affects women more than men; more pre-born females are murdered than pre-born males, and more minorities than whites, as well. But you'd be wrong to imagine it does not affect men.
In any case, your objection would be silly. It would be the same as saying, "Slavery only affects slave-owners, so nobody else can have an opinion about slavery." The issue of the rightness or wrongness of an act is debatable by anybody.
It wouldn't be like that at all, little man.
Actually, the parallel is good. Like slavers, aborters begin by de-humanizing their victims. The slavers called them "animals," and the aborters call them "clusters of cells." Then they can feel good about doing something very evil.
But whether blacks are human beings, or whether pre-born children are human beings, will not be settled by word games and feats of creative imagination. The truth is the truth, regardless of whether or not the dehumanizer in each case is willing to recognize it. And every woman who aborts knows that what she is desperate to prevent is the life of a person. It's the existence of the child she's trying to eradicate, not a mere "cluster of cells." A mere "cluster of cells" could never demand anything of her.
Fuck off. You aren't fooling anyone. I wish your mother had aborted you.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:53 am
It's the existence of the child she's trying to eradicate, not a mere "cluster of cells." A mere "cluster of cells" could never demand anything of her.
...you mean possibly the same cluster of cells doomed to be condemned to burn in hell forever if that cluster of cells grows up never believing in Jesus? Since that would not be so unusual, don't you think eradicating a mere cluster of cells actually amounts to a mercy killing since your loving god is out for blood or more accurately stated, boiling blood if ignored? Even a god can't do such damage to someone who never even got the chance to exist!
You are a true aficionado in the ingeniously perverse ways you apply logic. To take you seriously in whatever you write would be a perverse act in itself.
Last edited by Dubious on Tue Jul 16, 2024 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:01 am
Not "conflating." Nothing mistaken. Nothing equivocal. Everything clear.
I'm outright identifying it as murder, because that's exactly what it is. It's the killing of an innocent human person, by the woman who created her in the first place, and who, by all rights, should be her most loving and reliable protector. It's an unconscionable, wicked deed.
How much more strongly can one put it?
Nope.
If any law define a abortion as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.
If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.
So that's clearly not the case.
Even if the Nazis did not define the killing of Jews and others as murder, but the Laws within the International Court of Justice defined the killing of Jews and others as murder.
The International Military Tribunal [MIT] also recognized the killing of Jews and others as murder under its Laws and those Nazis responsible were prosecuted.
So, of any law define a abortion or killing of humans as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.
Your personal definition of abortion as murder do not have any teeth at all except to make noises.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:45 pm
Those aren't "rights." "Rights" are, by definition, inalienable. If the State can take them away, then you have no "right" to them at all. What you have is only State-granted beneficence...and only for the present moment.
I'm no expert on rights, but I think it is only unalienable rights that are unalienable. Bog standard rights can be given...
If they can be given and taken away at will, then in what sense are they your "right" at all?
We are obviously talking about different things. I am talking about the kind of rights that enable me to actually do something in a practical sense, such as vote in an election, or demand medical treatment. I think you are talking about the same kind of rights that henry talks about; the kind that you somehow intuitively believe you should have. Sort of notional moral rights. Well I suppose many of our actual rights are based on those kinds of intuitive moral rights, but they only become actual rights when they are backed by some human authority or other.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:53 am
It's the existence of the child she's trying to eradicate, not a mere "cluster of cells." A mere "cluster of cells" could never demand anything of her.
...you mean possibly the same cluster of cells doomed...
There is no such thing as "doomed." We all choose what we get.
If any law define a abortion as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.
If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.
So that's clearly not the case.
Even if the Nazis did not define the killing of Jews and others as murder, but the Laws within the International Court of Justice defined the killing of Jews and others as murder.
What makes the one court the eliminator of the ruling of the other? You'd need a principle that transcends both, in order to say that the ICJ was "more just" than the Judenrein laws. And from where would you get that all-transcending principle? You don't believe any such thing can exist.
