Hobbes' Choice wrote:It looks like the Kermit Gosnell case is a case of murder and not a case of abortion.
Including him on this thread is a fallacy of category.
This does not advance an argument that abortion is murder. It does advance a case that stabbing babies is murder.
You are guessing where I'm going, and yet you're not correct, Hobbes. Be a little patient, and you'll see. But I need an answer from the others.
Thank you, by the way, for your frankness. Your answer is "murder," and it agrees with mine. Let's see now who else agrees...or doesn't.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It looks like the Kermit Gosnell case is a case of murder and not a case of abortion.
Including him on this thread is a fallacy of category.
This does not advance an argument that abortion is murder. It does advance a case that stabbing babies is murder.
You are guessing where I'm going, and yet you're not correct, Hobbes. Be a little patient, and you'll see. But I need an answer from the others.
Thank you, by the way, for your frankness. Your answer is "murder," and it agrees with mine. Let's see now who else agrees...or doesn't.
Sorry but I doubt we actually agree on these matters in detail, but we shall see.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Sorry but I doubt we actually agree on these matters in detail, but we shall see.
Perhaps not. But we have a starting point. We both agree that to deliver a perfectly viable baby and then slit its spine with scissors is murder. And honestly, I think it's got to be equally clear to any moral person. But we'll see.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Sorry but I doubt we actually agree on these matters in detail, but we shall see.
Perhaps not. But we have a starting point. We both agree that to deliver a perfectly viable baby and then slit its spine with scissors is murder. And honestly, I think it's got to be equally clear to any moral person. But we'll see.
What sickens me about you and your ilk is that you don't actually care about babies at all. You see someone like Kermit Whathisname as a weapon you might be able to use to further your disingenuous and transparently supersitious 'cause'. I've never seen a single 'pro-lifer' who was motivated by anything other than unsavoury religious misogyny.
Do you have a problem with IVF clinics flushing viable embryos?
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Sorry but I doubt we actually agree on these matters in detail, but we shall see.
Perhaps not. But we have a starting point. We both agree that to deliver a perfectly viable baby and then slit its spine with scissors is murder. And honestly, I think it's got to be equally clear to any moral person. But we'll see.
What sickens me about you and your ilk is that you don't actually care about babies at all. You see someone like Kermit Whathisname as a weapon you might be able to use to further your disingenuous and transparently supersitious 'cause'. I've never seen a single 'pro-lifer' who was motivated by anything other than insavoury religious misogyny.
Do you have a problem with IVF clinics flushing viable embryos?
Apparently I've sinned because I happen to know that my sperm is "viable". I'm a mass murderer because I've made more sperms than babies in my life. Oh the horror!!
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Apparently I've sinned because I happen to know that my sperm is "viable". I'm a mass murderer because I've made more sperms than babies in my life. Oh the horror!!
What's the bet he won't answer my IVF question either?
vegetariantaxideryy wrote:
What's the bet he won't answer my IVF question either?
Don't worry. I'm just waiting to hear back from everyone.
But while we're on the topic, I'm waiting for you to answer my question too.
You first.
I'll remind you: is killing live babies (in the fashion that Gosnell did, for example) "murder"? Yes or no?
I knew you wouldn't answer it. Hypocrite. I think Hobbes answered your question pretty well. It's an insulting question and asked for ungenuine reasons.
If you think abortion is murder then you must be against IVF clinics. Simple logic.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
I think Hobbes answered your question pretty well.
He did. You did not.
Is it murder, yes or no?
Legally it is. What else is anyone supposed to say? What does that have to do with anything? At 24 weeks a birth is viable, and is no longer 'abortion' but induced labour. YOU are against ALL abortion, not just late term. You still haven't answered my question.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
I think Hobbes answered your question pretty well.
He did. You did not.
Is it murder, yes or no?
What is murder, exactly? Is it an obvious thing? When a government puts a contract out on a state enemy, is that murder? Where does the rationalization end? If it can be rationalized, is it okay? Does God murder? Knowing a.person will die due to a set of circumstances, and setting the chain going, is that murder? And lastly, which causes more suffering; ending a life before it gains the level of consciousness that even a child can recognize, and which an adult takes for granted, or sentencing it to an unknown 'destiny'?
Last edited by Dalek Prime on Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
I think Hobbes answered your question pretty well.
He did. You did not.
Is it murder, yes or no?
Legally it is. What else is anyone supposed to say? What does that have to do with anything? At 24 weeks a birth is viable, and is no longer 'abortion' but induced labour. YOU are against ALL abortion, not just late term. You still haven't answered my question.
More questions you won't answer. Are you for the death penalty? Are you against welfare?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
I think Hobbes answered your question pretty well.
He did. You did not.
Is it murder, yes or no?
What is murder, exactly? Is it an obvious thing? When a government puts a contract out on a state enemy, is that murder? Where does the rationalization end? If it can be rationalized, is it okay? Does God murder?
The insincere moron doesn't realise that his god is the most prolific abortionist hands down.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Nope, you're wrong. The person who is NOT committing an action has no burden to prove anything. It's the person who IS contemplating the action that has to justify it.
You're mistaking a criminal proceeding, in which an action has already taken place and blame is being assigned ex post facto for a justificatory situation, in which the person who wants permission to perform a possibly-immoral action must show that his or her action is not immoral. So unless you're conceding that a crime has taken place, you're simply wrong. Sorry.
There is no such thing as justification of contemplation of murder. You just made that up.
Immanuel Can wrote:
You're right. My opinion doesn't matter. Now. let's see what God thinks...And let's see how that works out for everybody who has perpetrated abortion. Or, better, let's get this right and repent now, so the Ultimate Judge does not come in and rule on this one. And if you care about the women in question, or their abortion doctors, that's what you should want too.
In which case, you are just worried about your God's wrath. You are not trying to protect children. Your whole objection to abortion is because you think your God is against it.
Immanuel Can wrote:
sthitapragya wrote:
gun control
Obscurantism. Go back a couple of exchanges, to the last time I addressed the subject. You've got all on that you need right there.
Now you are not playing fair. Taking one word out of context. I am very disappointed that you would assume that you are boss in this conversation and can therefore pick and choose what to talk about. Gun control is about protecting children. Abortion is also about protecting children. You have no justification to discard one part of the conversation simply because you cannot answer it.
Immanuel Can wrote:
But now, let's see what you really think.
If you bothered to read about Kermit Gosnell, we have a starting point. Let's see if we can find the point at which we agree.
Here's the Washington Post on the subject:
"Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them," the report said. "He didn’t call it that. He called it 'ensuring fetal demise.' The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord."
My question to you is simple: was what Gosnell did murder? Yes, or no. And we'll go from there.
[/quote]
It is murder.
Now here is one for you:
1. Does God commit murder when a woman suffers a miscarriage due to genetic causes?
Be a little patient, and you'll see. But I need an answer from the others.
We both agree that to deliver a perfectly viable baby and then slit its spine with scissors is murder. And honestly, I think it's got to be equally clear to any moral person. But we'll see.
Or, better, let's get this right and repent now, so the Ultimate Judge does not come in and rule on this one. And if you care about the women in question, or their abortion doctors, that's what you should want too.