GannonFan wrote:I never understand that. Most car wrecks are because at least one person screwed up. Why is that an accident then? Accidents imply no fault, when in reality there's almost always a fault, and a driver fault at that.kalm wrote:
Car wrecks are called accidents.
First, the sound science and data refers to the consultation mothers receive about raising a child with downs syndrome. I personally commend European nations which have reduced babies born with downs syndrome to near zero while still allowing the mother to choose. That's a program we should emulate.GannonFan wrote:You do realize that from a "sound science" standpoint that a human being, a human life, begins at conception, right? There's really no other argument to say that it doesn't. I'll be the first to admit that it is certainly complicated tremendously that that human life, until birth, is fully dependent on another human being they are inside of (the mother), and that human life is fully dependent on other human beings for survival for at least the first 10-15 years of their life. But there's really no argument that goes against the scientific fact that it's a human being from the get go. When medical advances gets us to the artificial wombs for soon after conception, we're really going to have face up to this scientific fact and deal with what to do with all those unwanted pregnancies. Anything we do until then isn't based on science, it's based on politics and compromises with competing ethical choices.∞∞∞ wrote: Actually yes, because European abortion laws are based on sound science and data.
While over here fake "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" operated by ~insert random evangelical organization~ can set up shop right next to an actual women's health center, lure them in, pretend to be medical professionals, and spread actual false information about abortions. And it's totally legal...because God.
Get back to us when your wife/girlfriend/hooker is one day away from her due date∞∞∞ wrote:Personally, I think a woman should be allowed to abort the fetus at any time up to birth for whatever reason she wants. At birth, it's protected by the Constitution.
God are you stoopid when it comes to this topic.kalm wrote:Onerous...Pwns wrote:
Maybe we can establish consistency standards for various types of advocacy and activism?
1. No complaining about money in US politics until you are actively working to fix places in the world where actual vote rigging occurs.
2. No voicing concerns about the minimum wage in the US until you do something about the lack of labor laws in Malaysia and Bangladesh.
3. Feminism (especially as it relates to objecting to abortion restrictions) isn't allowed until you are working to end female genital mutilation, honor killings, and female disenfranchisement over the entire world (i.e. Islamophobic Western cultural imperialism).
How about we start first at the voting booth? You and Hen, in support of children, must vote for anti-abortion candidates who are also foreign policy pacifists, and support the social safety net.
It's Kryptonite. Superman's only weakness. We start talking abortion and you and Kalm turn into babbling idiots.Chizzang wrote:You keep saying "Krytonite"89Hen wrote: My horse could not have legs and still be considered "high" compared to your moronic statements on this. You just keep reminding me how much of a kryptonite this topic is for you.
and I'm not sure you know what it means..?
I'm not the one who is pretending to care about every person on earth
If only someone cared about the all the molested children in Catholicism half as much
as you care for the children of Africa
Religion has zippie to do with this from anyone here who is debating from the pro-life side, so I'm not sure why you'd want to throw that in there.Silenoz wrote:I know a way you guys can compromise this out. You lefties admit you're killing kids, and you righties admit religion is a hoax. After that reset we approach this again where everyone wins
I think abortion should be reduced/eliminated as much as possible. And I want ALL kids to have a chance at life.89Hen wrote:God are you stoopid when it comes to this topic.kalm wrote:
Onerous...
How about we start first at the voting booth? You and Hen, in support of children, must vote for anti-abortion candidates who are also foreign policy pacifists, and support the social safety net.
Babbling idiots..?89Hen wrote:It's Kryptonite. Superman's only weakness. We start talking abortion and you and Kalm turn into babbling idiots.Chizzang wrote:
You keep saying "Krytonite"
and I'm not sure you know what it means..?
I'm not the one who is pretending to care about every person on earth
If only someone cared about the all the molested children in Catholicism half as much
as you care for the children of Africa
Really backed off of the science angle then, huh? Went right to something not based on science whatsoever. The Constitution is pretty silent on this matter, so saying it's protected or not and when it is protected is entirely up to opinion. Whereas science isn't.∞∞∞ wrote:First, the sound science and data refers to the consultation mothers receive about raising a child with downs syndrome. I personally commend European nations which have reduced babies born with downs syndrome to near zero while still allowing the mother to choose. That's a program we should emulate.GannonFan wrote:
You do realize that from a "sound science" standpoint that a human being, a human life, begins at conception, right? There's really no other argument to say that it doesn't. I'll be the first to admit that it is certainly complicated tremendously that that human life, until birth, is fully dependent on another human being they are inside of (the mother), and that human life is fully dependent on other human beings for survival for at least the first 10-15 years of their life. But there's really no argument that goes against the scientific fact that it's a human being from the get go. When medical advances gets us to the artificial wombs for soon after conception, we're really going to have face up to this scientific fact and deal with what to do with all those unwanted pregnancies. Anything we do until then isn't based on science, it's based on politics and compromises with competing ethical choices.
And yes, I agree that biologically a fetus is human from conception. This doesn't change the argument about person-hood and consciousness. Personally, I think a woman should be allowed to abort the fetus at any time up to birth for whatever reason she wants. At birth, it's protected by the Constitution.
Sounds like his parents skipped over a boatload of countries between Romania and the US that they could have claimed asylum in, including Mexico. Legitamately seeking asylum my ass...Skjellyfetti wrote:What do you think about a 4 month old immigrant child separated from his family at the border, Hen?
He's from Romania. His parents were legitimately seeking asylum at the border. Family thrown into camps in Texas. He's sent to Michigan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/16/us/b ... rants.html
No, Reek. They did not have a legitimate claim.Skjellyfetti wrote:What do you think about a 4 month old immigrant child separated from his family at the border, Hen?
He's from Romania. His parents were legitimately seeking asylum at the border. Family thrown into camps in Texas. He's sent to Michigan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/16/us/b ... rants.html
I'll defer to CID, but aren't you supposed to make an asylum claim at the nearest "friendly" country? Or something like that?Skjellyfetti wrote:They sought asylum legitimately at the border.
They didn't try crossing illegally. Seeking asylum at the border is legitimate. Whether they should have been denied or approved is a separate issue.
But, apprehending and separating them at that point is inhumane. IMO. Was curious if Hen's compassion made him agree with me or not.
I didn’t read the article. Which border did they try to enter through? Indiana?Ibanez wrote:Btw, that NYT article is incredible. It's terrible that we're separating children from the parents.
And then sending the parents for therapy b/c they're stressed and upset over their situation and the unknown well being of their children. What a stupid policy.
We separate criminals from their kids everyday. Do you not care about those children?Skjellyfetti wrote:They sought asylum legitimately at the border.
They didn't try crossing illegally. Seeking asylum at the border is legitimate. Whether they should have been denied or approved is a separate issue.
But, apprehending and separating them at that point is inhumane. IMO. Was curious if Hen's compassion made him agree with me or not.
No, Reek, they did not legitimately seek asylum. And, they requested it on apprehension INSIDE the US.Skjellyfetti wrote:They sought asylum legitimately at the border.
They didn't try crossing illegally. Seeking asylum at the border is legitimate. Whether they should have been denied or approved is a separate issue.
But, apprehending and separating them at that point is inhumane. IMO. Was curious if Hen's compassion made him agree with me or not.
Are they criminals? Or just people that MIGHT not fully understand the rules of requesting/granting asylum.HI54UNI wrote:We separate criminals from their kids everyday. Do you not care about those children?Skjellyfetti wrote:They sought asylum legitimately at the border.
They didn't try crossing illegally. Seeking asylum at the border is legitimate. Whether they should have been denied or approved is a separate issue.
But, apprehending and separating them at that point is inhumane. IMO. Was curious if Hen's compassion made him agree with me or not.
They requested it at an immigration checkpoint on the foot bridge between Mexico and the US. That's an appropriate place to request asylum.CID1990 wrote:And, they requested it on apprehension INSIDE the US.
Unsure of what else to do, he paid a cabdriver to take him and Constantin to the foot bridge into the United States, thinking that he could call his wife when they reached the other side. It was dark outside when he reached an immigration officer stationed outside the American border. He told the officer that he wanted political asylum and was taken in to be interviewed with the help of an interpreter on the phone. Mr. Mutu explained that he had lost his wife and son, and that they were fleeing persecution in Romania.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... plicationsYou may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States.
Because you not only throw them a bone to get this moving, but you remove that argument from the equation and simplify things. Hence the word compromise.89Hen wrote:Religion has zippie to do with this from anyone here who is debating from the pro-life side, so I'm not sure why you'd want to throw that in there.Silenoz wrote:I know a way you guys can compromise this out. You lefties admit you're killing kids, and you righties admit religion is a hoax. After that reset we approach this again where everyone wins
The gypsies are coming! The gypsies are coming!CID1990 wrote:No, Reek, they did not legitimately seek asylum. And, they requested it on apprehension INSIDE the US.Skjellyfetti wrote:They sought asylum legitimately at the border.
They didn't try crossing illegally. Seeking asylum at the border is legitimate. Whether they should have been denied or approved is a separate issue.
But, apprehending and separating them at that point is inhumane. IMO. Was curious if Hen's compassion made him agree with me or not.
The US was not the first safe country they entered after leaving Romania.
Therefore, asylum request DENIED as frivolous.
Next time, seek asylum in one of those EU countries that are better than us.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Aren't you just arguing for arguing sake here? They were in a country other than Romania at some point before coming to the US. Sure, they can request asylum here, but you'll be denied if you were somewhere else you could've requested asylum before getting here and you didn't request it while there.Skjellyfetti wrote:They requested it at an immigration checkpoint on the foot bridge between Mexico and the US. That's an appropriate place to request asylum.CID1990 wrote:And, they requested it on apprehension INSIDE the US.
Unsure of what else to do, he paid a cabdriver to take him and Constantin to the foot bridge into the United States, thinking that he could call his wife when they reached the other side. It was dark outside when he reached an immigration officer stationed outside the American border. He told the officer that he wanted political asylum and was taken in to be interviewed with the help of an interpreter on the phone. Mr. Mutu explained that he had lost his wife and son, and that they were fleeing persecution in Romania.https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... plicationsYou may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States.
How'd he get to Mexico? Why not request asylum there?Skjellyfetti wrote:They requested it at an immigration checkpoint on the foot bridge between Mexico and the US. That's an appropriate place to request asylum.CID1990 wrote:And, they requested it on apprehension INSIDE the US.
Unsure of what else to do, he paid a cabdriver to take him and Constantin to the foot bridge into the United States, thinking that he could call his wife when they reached the other side. It was dark outside when he reached an immigration officer stationed outside the American border. He told the officer that he wanted political asylum and was taken in to be interviewed with the help of an interpreter on the phone. Mr. Mutu explained that he had lost his wife and son, and that they were fleeing persecution in Romania.https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... plicationsYou may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States.
