Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:24 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:45 am I have no problem with abortion clinics providing all that information. Why not campaign for that instead of campaigning for what could potentially end up as its abolishment?

Well, because abortion is murder. That's a pretty good reason.

So, is CHOOSING to LET children DIE, 'murder'. Instead of CHOOSING to keep them ALIVE, 'you' CHOOSE to LET them DIE. Which is EXACTLY what 'you' do do "immanuel can".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:32 amWhen do you think the Supreme Court will impose stricter gun control laws? I mean does anyone really need an AR-15?

Personally? I don't. But I don't begrudge anyone else having one, since I know there are WAAAAAY worse guns out there. But i don't think SCOTUS will rule for more gun control for two reasons: one, while the constitution says nothing about abortion, it does about gun ownership; but two, gun control doesn't work. I assume they're smart enough to know that.

As far as I am AWARE the 'constitution' of that LITTLE country does NOT absolutely ANY thing about 'gun ownership' AT ALL.

BUT, maybe 'you' or someone else here might be ABLE TO guide us to WHERE it does. That is; if it does SAY that, AT ALL.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am I live in an area with exceedingly tight gun control laws.

'area' and 'exceedingly tight' being the operative, and VERY RELATIVE, words here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am Most people do not own one at all...even a hunting rifle.

How 'big' is this 'area', how 'many' people exist and live within this 'area', and HOW, EXACTLY, do you KNOW what MOST PEOPLE have or NOT have, in that 'area'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am Still, in my area, most crimes are committed with handguns...which are totally restricted weapons, that require a special permit, a full and comprehensive police check, and cannot even be moved between locations except under special circumstances. But all those laws have only cramped law-abiding folks.

Are some people who have abortions law-abiding citizens?

If yes, then WHAT is wrong with being a law-abiding citizen?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am The criminals sail merrily along.

Is this ALWAYS, for ALL so-called "criminals"?

Have 'you' NEVER 'broken the law' nor done a 'crime' "immanuel can"?

What, EXACTLY, makes a "crimnal" a 'criminal'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am So there has to be a better solution than just making more laws that we already know don't work.

The law of PROHIBITING abortion DOES NOT and WILL NOT 'work'. So, what IS the 'better solution' here?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am If anybody's serious about getting guns out of the hands of criminals, they're going to have to do something real, not just another symbolic gesture.

Well this IS and WAS just PLAIN OBVIOUS.

The SOLUTION, of which, ALSO being just as PLAIN, and just as OBVIOUS, AS WELL.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am And for me, that's probably meaning much, much tougher sentences for criminals.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' make me LAUGH "immanuel can".

'you' say this as though 'tougher sentencing' HAS STOPPED "criminals" from RE-APPEARING.

'Tougher sentencing' has NEVER worked, and will NEVER work.

In fact, 'tougher sentencing' makes WORSE societies. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, in the days when this was being written, by that out-of-country known as the "united states of america"

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am It's also going to mean cleaning up the crime areas, where these guns are a status symbol and a tool of the criminal underclass.

Which is NOT the 'area' 'you' live in, right "immanuel can"?

How I KNOW this is because 'you' would NOT associate "yourself" WITH the so-called "underclass", and this is BECAUSE 'you', literally, associated "your" 'self' ONLY with the "upperclass".

And, please feel FREE to Correct 'me' if I am Wrong in ANY way here "immanuel can".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am Right now, the laws aren't even making a dent -- and as I say, the gun laws here are much tougher than where you are, by a long, long shot.

WHERE are 'you', "immanuel can", AND, WHERE is the "other"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:34 am We can't even own most weapons you might find in a Dick's Sporting Goods in the US.

However, back to abortion: guns are a totally different issue.

LOL

Did 'you' FORGET that it was 'you' who brought up 'guns' in some example here?

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:13 am forced "marriages,"

Arranged marriages are the norm in Asia. They are rarely "forced".

In the days when this is being written, do you REALLY BELIEVE that 'arranged marriages' is the so-called 'norm' throughout ALL of "asia"?

For example, if 'you' are married, was 'you' and 'your partner's' marriage arranged?

And, either way, how many "other" marriages, in say the current period, do you know of, were arranged compared to were NOT arranged?

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am If the family has found a good husband for their daughter, she should be grateful to her family for taking care of her interests. The ingratitude of women is often astonishing:

“I was shown hell. I saw that most of its inhabitants were ungrateful women… The Prophet was asked: ‘Were they ungrateful to Allāh?’ He replied: ‘They were ungrateful to their husbands and for the favors and the good done to them. If you show benevolence to one of them and then she sees something in you not to her liking, she will say: ‘I have never seen any good in you.’”

It is not a surprise that these women are ungrateful to their husbands. Before that, they were already ungrateful to their own families!

To me, this just speaks of what is known as, 'black or white thinking'. That is; instead of LOOKING AT and SPEAKING thee ACTUAL Truth of things, adults, some of the time or generally, will USE obviously extreme and thus ABSURD terms like; "you NEVER do ANY good", sometimes just on the bases of SEEING some thing once, ALONE.

Now, that it was a 'male' MAKING OUT that 'females' do this, is just a SIGN of time. Which was most likely BECAUSE it was 'men' who used to usually write the books, back in those times, and it was 'men' who thought "themselves" SUPERIOR to 'females'. Which, REALLY, NOT much HAD CHANGED, back in the days when this was being written.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here within the writings, within this thread, and by what this thread is ACTUALLY about. Which is just more or less 'males' STILL thinking and/or BELIEVING that they had the 'right' to TELL 'females' what they could or could NOT do with 'their' bodies, and thinking or BELIEVING that 'they' (the males" STILL had the 'right' to ENFORCE their VIEWS and BELIEFS onto "others", and to ENFORCE the 'rules' that they ACTUALLY made up.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am In the West, the daughter choosing by herself, without family supervision, has turned out to be a complete disaster.

Here is ANOTHER of what is sometimes referred to and called 'black or white thinking'.

Are you SURE that this 'female' CHOOSING the 'partner' that she WANTS for, and by, herself is a COMPLETE disaster?

1. Does this COMPLETE disaster apply to EVERY female? And,

2. Does this COMPLETE disaster apply to the WHOLE of human existence, forever more?

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am It degenerates into a situation where girls run up a triple-digit body count by having sex with bad boys and other Chads.

WHY EXACT REASON does the number of sexual partners a MALE or FEMALE have, MATTER TO, or even CONCERN, you?

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am Is the hookup culture really a viable alternative to arranged marriage?

Is it an alternative?

What is the word 'viable' here in relation to, EXACTLY?

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am With all these modern women complaining on Tiktok that they got pumped, dumped, and ghosted by the next guy on the joystick carousel, what do you propose instead of arranged marriage?

Guiding children BETTER than what 'you', adult human beings, HAVE BEEN DOING.

And, REMEMBER 'actions, or behaviors, speak LOUDER than words'.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am Furthermore, women complaining about customs, tradition, and religion are also not particularly smart.

LOL

Some of the 'comments' that come out the mouths of 'males' REALLY DO make one LAUGH. Especially when those 'comments' are in relation to 'females'.

It could also be SAID and ARGUED that 'complaining males' are NOT 'particularly smart' AT ALL, either.

And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN in this thread, and forum, is a LOT of COMPLAINING from BOTH the 'females' and the 'males', EQUALLY.

'you', adult human beings, REALLY are some 'thing' to OBSERVE, and BEHOLD.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am At best, it will cause them to lose the benefits they get from that, without gaining anything in exchange.

ONCE AGAIN, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN, AGAIN, 'money' and/or 'monetary goods' were FAR MORE IMPORTANT that absolutely ANY 'thing', back in those OLDEN DAYS when this was being written. In fact, 'money' and/or 'monetary goods' WAS MORE IMPORTANT than just FINDING the 'right' one, and settleing down and CREATING a Truly LOVING and CARING family, in PEACE and in Harmony.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am Modern women must fend for themselves because men are sick and tired of them. This was to be expected, because their own families were already sick and tired of them.

Did I mention above the Truly STUPID and ABSURD 'comments' some people REALLY made, back in those days when this was being written?

If I did NOT, then here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of one of those MANY Truly ABSURD and STUPID comments.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am So, yes, I believe in the increasingly popular mantra: "Islam is correct about women".

What does "islam" SAY about 'women', EXACTLY?

AND, WHO is the ONE who SPEAKS for "islam"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:52 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:13 am forced "marriages,"

Arranged marriages are the norm in Asia. They are rarely "forced".

Yes, I know the difference. I lived in the Developing World, where they sometimes are, though, and where slavery, tribalism, war, abuse...and all those other factors routinely deprive women of the protection of any man.

In the West,

So we're talking about Westerners now? No longer about the Developing World?

With all these modern women complaining on Tiktok that they got pumped, dumped, and ghosted by the next guy on the joystick carousel, what do you propose instead of arranged marriage?

Well, that's a false dichotomy, of course; those are not the only two ways things can go. But I agree that both of those alternatives are considerably less than ideal.

So, yes, I believe in the increasingly popular mantra: "Islam is correct about women".

I have to say, I totally disagree.

I suggest that Islam has a hostile and abusive view of women, judging by the Chapter of Women in the Koran...which I have read, and have right here on hand, as a matter of fact.

Can you INFORM us of WHY some woman SEE the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you do, in, supposedly, the EXACT SAME words?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm
Of course, I'm not saying that all Islamic men are abusive...some are, some aren't.

EXACTLY LIKE some so-called "christian" men are abusive to their partners, male and female, correct "immanuel can"?

And what else ALL "christian" AND "islamic" 'men' have in COMMON is that they are ALL ABUSIVE to children.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm I'm just saying that those who use the Koran rules will feel they have perfect permission to beat and tyrannize their wives.

How DIFFERENTLY 'you', human beings, SEE 'things'. Even WHEN 'you' are LOOKING or STARING AT the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

But HOW and WHY this ACTUALLY happens and occurs is VERY EASILY and SIMPLY EXPLAINED, or SHOWN.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm And that would be part of the problem.

Moreover, if we're still talking about overpopulation, the Islamic world is one place that's creating much of that.

Could you OBVIOUSLY ONE-EYED picture and view of the 'world' get ANY MORE OBVIOUS "immanuel can"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm So, assuming my other interlocutors are right about there being such a problem, appealing to Islam to cure it would be utterly counterproductive. We need a much better solution.

1. What is the supposed 'problem' here?

2. NO REAL solution involves ONE group nor religion.

3. The REAL solution involves ALL of 'you', adult human beings, CHANGING.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:58 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:24 am
Well, because abortion is murder. That's a pretty good reason.

Prove it.

Otherwise...you are only bluffing, worse still, you are lying.

You're just projecting your own tendency for lying and nonsense, again.

Crucial elements of the situation:
Premeditation. Killing. Innocents.

Sounds like first degree murder, maybe even a hate crime*.

The question is, how can a state legalize murder, even if murder is the will of the people?

The SAME WAY they legalize ALL of the other, IMMORAL, and Wrong, things in Life.

The 'state' has members of adult human beings, usually male in gender', voting for and AGREEING UPON what WILL BECOME legal, and what WILL NOT.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm Answer: only by defying science, and assigning non-human status to the victim.

Does the so-called 'state' call the living things in pregnant female wombs 'non-human'?

If yes, then is this in writing?

If yes, then will you PROVIDE WHERE this is WRITTEN and STATED?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm * hate crime, rather than crime, is referenced only because it sounds like a Progressive Label.

Okay.

What does a so-called "progrssive label" sound like?

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 am
We know that a baby in utero can make its own decisions. When she kicks, it's not because the mother told her to. When she gets hiccups, the mother doesn't. Her heart beats about twice as fast as the mother's does. When a needle is inserted into the amniotic sac to kill the child, she reacts away from it. And when she is pulled apart, she screams.

You are citing reflexes, not thoughtful decisions.

VERY True.

And, WHY 'decisions' relate to 'behaviors', which a person HAS CONTROL over, while 'actions' and maybe more correctly 'reactions' are NOT some thing that a 'person' has control over.

WHICH then leads to UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING what is Truly Right and Wrong, in Life.

WHICH THEN, leads to further UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING about HOW to create and live IN a Truly peaceful and harmonious 'world'.

But, first things first. These will ALL come, later on.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:23 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:41 am
I'm afraid it's clear you're not understanding what's happened at all. Your "facts" are just wrong, and wrong in ways you could confirm yourself, if you went and looked.

The R v. W. decision does not make abortions criminal. It doesn't even deny that every state in the union can have unrestricted abortions. What this decision says, is that when the court formerly ruled on R v. W., back in 1973, it was overreaching and outside the constitution entirely. This decisin says, the court screwed up, and it's time to set things in right order again.

It's not actually a decision about abortion per se, at all.

Consequently, it's a decision purely about JURISDICTION. Nothing more. Nothing else.

All it says is that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction to dictate to states what their choice about abortion must be. It says that that question has to be settled at the state level.

And that's all it says.

So we have to understand this situation correctly. Abortion has not been "overturned," as Gary's headline would induce us to imagine. And it certainly has not been "criminalized," as you suggest. All it is, is a decision that states must decide. Period. No more, no less.

Let's keep the discussion sane.

Beg pardon. I should have said that the decision allows individual States to declare or to have declared abortions to be unlawful.

I haven’t read the decision, but I believe it is aimed specifically at abortions with a more generalized application to the roles of SCOTUS, the federal government and the state governments.

Your belief is incorrect. You should read the decision, I suggest. It's a purely judicial matter.

Now, the panic from the Left is interesting.

NOT using ACTUAL Truthful words, but USING False 'emotive' words instead, EXACTLY like in this sentence, was VERY COMMON in the days when this was being written, and had ACTUALLY BECOME VERY COMMONLY USED in some, if not just about ALL 'news media' outlets.

Also, considering absolutely NONE of these adult human beings could DEFINE, ACCURATELY, what words like "Left" MEANT EXACTLY, it was HUMOROUS WATCHING them USE it and OBSERVING just how MANY TIMES it would get USED.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm It signals that they just can't stand the idea of non-centralized power in these issues.

One is left' to wonder if ALL 'left-handed' human beings REALLY could NOT stand some, PERCEIVED, idea of some so-called "non-centralized power" in these issues? That is; if that is what "Left" ACTUALLY MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY.

But, if what was MEANT was "Left thinking", then one is left wondering what could that ACTUALLY MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm They know darn well that states like Cali and New York will keep aborting children right up to post-birth.

Well, if they are ALLOWED to, then they are NOT committing ANY crime, AT ALL, correct?

If no, then 'what crime' are they committing, EXACTLY?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm So the actual threat of non-existence of abortions is not what they're mad about; they're mad that not everybody is going to be forced to play things their way.

And are 'you' 'trying to' suggest here that 'you' are coming across as NOT mad about the fact that in some states one is ALLOWED to HAVE an abortion?

And that NOT in EVERY state ALL females WILL be FORCED to 'play things out' YOUR way "immanuel can"?

In other words are 'you' NOT MAD about the fact that some females are NOT FORCED into NOT having abortions?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm They're mad at the idea that there could be diversity of opinion and diversity of law among diverse states.

But WHY is there SO MUCH DIVISION between 'you', adult human beings, who LIVE and EXIST in 'your' One and ONLY 'home'?

WHEN 'you' FIND OUT what that Truth IS, then 'you' will ALL be a STEP CLOSER ...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm They hate that people will have the choice to live in states that do not subsidize promiscious murder with their taxes, or to be forced to approve of it in all locales.

What is so-called 'promiscious murder', and how does this differeniate from just play old 'murder'?

Do you like or love that people have the choice to live in states where people are MUCH MORE FREER, where taxes are used DIFFERENTLY, and are NOT FORCED to follow and abide by laws that PREVENT 'females' from having 'rights' and 'freedoms'?

Or do you hate or dislike the fact that people are ALLOWED to HAVE and MAKE this CHOICE?

Your Honestly, like ALWAYS, will be MUCH APPRECIATED here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:18 pm Let 'em rage, I say. They're totalitarians and baby killers. If they're mad, that's good: it means we're doing the right thing.

And if your mad, does that mean us 'baby killers' are doing the right thing, ALSO?

if no, then WHY the DIFFERENCE?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:24 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:22 pm Why am I responding for IC? Well, since he's polite enough to answer most of the stupid bullshit [SB] (as opposed to critical thinking) that gets thrown his way, I figure batting a few silly softballs is a courtesy for helping both participants and lurkers to transcend the SB tedium.

Carry on, Walker. This is an open forum; anybody gets to speak here.

But some are just to WEAK and FRIGHTENED to RESPOND to what is SAID and WRITTEN here, correct?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:26 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 am
We know that a baby in utero can make its own decisions. When she kicks, it's not because the mother told her to. When she gets hiccups, the mother doesn't. Her heart beats about twice as fast as the mother's does. When a needle is inserted into the amniotic sac to kill the child, she reacts away from it. And when she is pulled apart, she screams.

You are citing reflexes, not thoughtful decisions.

On what basis are you thinking you know that?

From the basis of LOOKING AT ALL things, from CRITICAL THINKING, and from what ACTUALLY happens and occurs.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:26 pm Women themselves say, "The baby's kicking."

Women also sa, " "immanuel can" is a male-chauvinistic pig ".

So, is what women say ALWAYS true, right, and/or correct?

Also, because women say, "The baby is kicking", does this IRREFUTABLY MEAN that the baby has CHOSEN to 'kick', or COULD there be OTHER things happening and occurring here? Or, is there NO other option than just, "The baby is kicking" MEANS the baby has MADE A CHOICE?

Oh, and by the way, what, EXACTLY, would a baby CHOOSE to 'kick', within a COMPLETELY DARKENED womb?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:26 pm Poor fools -- they should say, "The cluster of cells is being induced to kick."

Are you AT ALL ABLE TO SEE PAST your OWN "superior" thinking and BELIEVING "immanuel can"?

WHY is it that some times it is the self-professed "christians" who come across as the most ARROGRANT and JUDGEMENTAL, 'self-obsessesed' people in the world?

WHEN 'you' "immanuel can" SAY, "The baby is sleeping", or "The baby pooed", are 'you' MEANING that the baby CHOSE 'to sleep' or CHOSE 'to poo' in the new diaper that was just put on them?

Or, are you some so-called "poor fool" that SHOULD HAVE SAID, "That cluster of cells was induced to sleep, or induced to poo"?

If you REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE that a baby in utero CAN make DECISIONS like you SAID and WROTE above, which by the way you CLAIM there are "others" who SAY and BELIEVE the EXACT SAME thing, then PLEASE go on ahead and BELIEVE that. But the Fact that those things are NOT just reflexes, and are ACTUAL OWN DECISIONS, I think you will find that 'you' are the ONLY one thinking or BELIEVING this here.

But, if you can FIND another human being who AGREES WITH you, then please feel FREE to either NAME 'them' or bring 'them' forward here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:16 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:05 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:07 am

*As in on his own, yes?

If so: you've rendered anyone usin' an iron lung, or its equivalent, and, mebbe, anyone who has asthma and who uses an inhaler, as a non-person.

Good point, but I was referencing just anyone who breathes air with or without assistance.

So, just to be clear: a human being (a person?) becomes a human being (a person?) only when he draws his first breath, yeah?

BUT, 'a human being' is NOT 'a person', AND vice-versa 'a person' is NOT 'a human being'.

I am NOT sure if you can SEE but there are DIFFERENT WORDS and TERMS, and the DIFFERENT words and terms MEAN, or REFER TO, DIFFERENT things.

The REASON WHY DIFFERENT words and terms EXIST and MEAN, or REFER TO, DIFFERENT things IS BECAUSE there would be absolute and irreparable CONFUSION among 'you', adult human beings.

Although there was a GREAT DEAL of CONFUSION, 'set in', ALREADY in 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, a LOT of this is just caused by the fact that one word can have MANY DIFFERENT meanings, or definitions. But, if it was ALSO the case that MANY or even ANY different meanings, or definitions, had the EXACT SAME word referencing them, then the CONFUSION that 'you' were ALL in would NOT have been ABLE TO be REPAIRED and SETTLED, ONCE, and FOR ALL, like it BECOMES.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:01 pm

Prove that abortion is murder.

In other words: is what a pregnant woman carries a person, or just meat?

We're no closer to an answer than we were when I first asked that question back in '19.

Some of 'us' KNOW the answer now and even KNEW the answer, back then.

Some of you just NEVER LISTENED to 'that answer', NOR even WANTED TO LISTEN to 'that answer'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:01 pm If there was just some way to allow women and men to exercise reproductive freedom (and that's what this is all about, right?) while neatly side-steppin' all the possible moral/ethical violations embedded in abortion.

It's as good a definition as any, what else ya got?

Oh, I've offered mine, over and over, across multiple threads, for years.

And, as you just said that got you any closer to an answer.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:01 pm Anyone who's interested can search the forum.

But you just said it got you no closer to an answer. So, WHY would ANY one want to search for 'that' what gets them NO closer to an answer?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:01 pm I got no interest in repeatin' what, it appears to me, no one has an interest in readin'.

WHY with the, "NO one has an interest in reading what i write", attitude "henry quirk"?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:11 pm

Prove that abortion is murder.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:01 pmIn other words: is what a pregnant woman carries a person, or just meat?

I seriously cannot believe how dumb you and your sidekicks are. I'm astounded beyond belief.

Murder requires a murderer. This has got nothing to do with a lump of fucking meat.
I'm asking you to prove that a woman who chooses to have an abortion is classed as a murderer. Until it can be proved that a woman is a murderer through the act of abortion. Then the accused woman is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Firstly, what has a 'court of law' got to do with what 'it' is that 'you' WANT 'proof', in this forum?

Now, the 'proof' NEEDED that 'a woman' who chooses to have an abortion is 'classed' as a "murderer", soledly depends on what the words 'woman', 'chooses', 'abortion', and 'murder' mean or refer to, EXACTLY.

For example, IF the word 'woman' means or refers to an adult female human being, the word 'chooses' means or refers to NOT being 'forced' to make 'a decision', the word 'abortion' meaning or referring to getting rid of the 'thing' growing inside a females womb, and 'murderer' means or refers to a 'women' who 'chooses' to have an 'abortion' is classed as a "murderer", then THERE IS the PROOF.

But, please feel FREE in NOT accepting this in ANY way AT ALL.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:01 pm The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.

And what is 'guilt' or 'innocence' based upon, EXACTLY, if NOT one words, and their meanings?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:01 pm Now, all you have to do is prove the woman is a murderer...that is all I'm am trying to say here, and will keep repeating this until someone comes up with the proof.

How did I do?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:31 pm

Now, all you have to do is prove the woman is a murderer...that is all I'm am trying to say here, and will keep repeating this until someone comes up with the proof.

But doin' that back & forth is not what I'm here, in this thread, for.

As I say: We're no closer to an answer than we were when I first asked that question back in '19.

That is: we're no closer today than we were in '19 to agreein' on what it is a woman carries during pregnancy, and we're no closer than we were in '19 to agreein' on the moral implications of abortion.

The REASON 'you' are NO closer to 'agreeing upon' what a pregnant female carries and what are the 'moral implications' of abortion is BECAUSE 'you' ALL have your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which 'you' are 'trying to' fight and/or argue FOR, instead.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:01 pm Personally, I see no point in endlessly rehashin' any of it.

No, I'm here, and in the companion thread, with a question...

If reproductive control really is the issue on the table (and not, for example, sacrifices to Moloch, or the denigration of personhood, or just plain old eugenics) then why aren't folks talkin' about tubal ligation and vasectomy?

Both are safe, effective, single event procedures. Both are reversible. Neither is particularly controversial today. Most importantly: if reproductive control is really the issue, both allow women and men to exercise it without, for some, killin' a baby or, for others, havin' a pesky parasite removed.

No one seems much interested.

This makes me think, mebbe, just mebbe, reproductive control really isn't the issue.

Besides 'you', "henry quirk", has ANY one even hinted that the 'abortion issue' is about some so-called "reproductive control' issue?

To me, they are VERY DIFFERENT issues, and discussions.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:11 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:29 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgjGwOByays

The Pro-abortionists have no chance against the unwavering belief that there is a God who will condemn someone to eternal hell fire.

The human mind is the only species on earth who is aware of concepts...a wrathful God can only be a human mental concept that no power on earth could change. No power on earth could ever separate the mind from it's believed conceptual content.

Carlin is right, he speaks the cold hard truth... However, some truths are hard to swallow, and will always fall on deaf ears, because it's seen as a threat to the ego... the religious mindset would never believe Carlin, instead would condemn him as a sinner, when all he is doing is pointing out the sheer hypocrisy that is every brainwashed religious control freak who are totally deaf dumb and blind to anything but their own beliefs.

The truth is, it does not want to he heard, except for those who hear it loud and clear.

So what is the truth? ..in truth, there isn't any, and that's why religion was artificially created, it is an imagined invention.



In reality, the mind knows nothing of it's existence, the mind is the ultimate pretender. Those who are anti-abortion are the same one's who fully support war. Truth is, no one can do anything to stop the ways of humanity, except to threaten them with empty meaningless words, and the madness continues, on and on and on.

The only true and real salvation is to have never been born.

Fortunately, Intelligent people know this.

From belief to clarity.

Dontaskme,

FRIGHTENING!!!!!!!

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:53 pm Moving to a State where you like the laws seems ideal when possible—something that couldn’t happen under Roe.

That's the court's point. Roe was judicial overreach...a case of the Federal government exceeding its constitutional power, and autocratically imposing a universal situation on all states, regardless of the wishes of the state's people. They're saying it was bad legislation and needed to be reversed.

Given that abortion was never a constitutional issue at all, they're right: the Federal government has no right to reach into people's lives or states' decisions in the way they had. For good or ill, the right level of government, constitutionally, to rule on abortion is the state level, not the Feds.

For those who hold that abortion is murder, this is surely just a restoring of minimal freedom and decency. They are freed from having to support with their taxes a thing they assert to be immoral and homicidal. They're having their right to conscience restored. That's all.

So all the clucking and fluffing about Roe is coming from the authoritarian Left. They can't stand anybody not to knuckle under to them. But this is purely a matter of jurisdictional authority, as the court made no ruling on the nature of abortion itself.