People actually vote for these guys.

[Chizzang]

1. We disagree on that one.
2. I honestly don't know what you mean on this one.
3. Not sure what this point has to do with you or me.
4. This cuts to the core of the disagreement. I don't believe a baby is property of a woman. You do.

Revisited:
1) of course we do
2) The decision to kill living things at every level has been happening for about 4 billion years. It is requirement for almost anything to live - that it kill... I see it as a larger cycle of life thing - it's just part of what happens every second of every day all over the world from bacteria or elephants accidentally stepping on dung beetles to carpet bombing civilians in Iraq...
3) The most adamant pro-lifers tend to be some of the most delusional uneducated - believe in fairy tales and have no understanding of life on earth nutballs... It's like walking up to an obviously crazy street person and trying to discuss the reality of Noah's ark and Dinosaurs and humans... As powerful as your argument "might be" it is weakened by the fervently insane who stand beside you...
4) Right - I believe they've done a great job all by themselves and don't require any assistance from MEN
most reports show over 90% of all murders are committed by men - yet we feel the need to tell the women how to perpetuate our species (ha ha ha) I see that as a pompous disconnect of colossal magnitude

[89Hen]

#2 still makes absolutely no sense. To live we have to kill babies?

#3, still not sure why it's relevant to you or me. I'm sure there are PLENTY of idiots who are pro-choice.

#4, trying to simplify this to a perpetuation of a species is ridiculous. If we were so utilitarian, we would sterilize people with physical and mental defects and grow babies in labs. Just because a baby grows inside a woman does not make it her property.

[Chizzang]

#2 still makes absolutely no sense. To live we have to kill babies?

#3, still not sure why it's relevant to you or me. I'm sure there are PLENTY of idiots who are pro-choice.

#4, trying to simplify this to a perpetuation of a species is ridiculous. If we were so utilitarian, we would sterilize people with physical and mental defects and grow babies in labs. Just because a baby grows inside a woman does not make it her property.

See how much fun this is...

[D1B]

#2 still makes absolutely no sense. To live we have to kill babies?

#3, still not sure why it's relevant to you or me. I'm sure there are PLENTY of idiots who are pro-choice.

#4, trying to simplify this to a perpetuation of a species is ridiculous. If we were so utilitarian, we would sterilize people with physical and mental defects and grow babies in labs. Just because a baby grows inside a woman does not make it her property.

I know you hate this one, but fetuses are aborted left and right and many times the women doesn't know it. Chances are your wife and mother flushed a Mini Hen or two down the toilet.

Such is life.

[JoltinJoe]

I'm saying the right for a woman to have an abortion is a self evident right

Really???

Your statement is internally inconsistent.

Let's start with this question: where do "self-evident rights" come from?

[Chizzang]

I'm saying the right for a woman to have an abortion is a self evident right

Really???

Your statement is internally inconsistent.

Let's start with this question: where do "self-evident rights" come from?

Gee let me guess... The Bible..?



I'm pretty excited to see where this conversation goes - do tell Joe

[D1B]

I'm saying the right for a woman to have an abortion is a self evident right

Really???

Your statement is internally inconsistent.

Let's start with this question: where do "self-evident rights" come from?

Rights come from the collective wisdom and experiences of man.

[JoltinJoe]

Really???

Your statement is internally inconsistent.

Let's start with this question: where do "self-evident rights" come from?

Rights come from the collective wisdom and experiences of man.

How can that be? If rights come from man, how can they be "self evident?"

And, if this is so, how are they "rights?" If they come from man, they can be taken back by man. And if something can be taken back by man, they are not "rights."

Your answer doesn't make any sense.

[JoltinJoe]

Really???

Your statement is internally inconsistent.

Let's start with this question: where do "self-evident rights" come from?

Gee let me guess... The Bible..?



I'm pretty excited to see where this conversation goes - do tell Joe

Nice trick. Avoid the question -- and the internally inconsistent statement you made -- by making a joke.

You're pinned down and you can't joke your way out of it.

[89Hen]

#2 still makes absolutely no sense. To live we have to kill babies?

#3, still not sure why it's relevant to you or me. I'm sure there are PLENTY of idiots who are pro-choice.

#4, trying to simplify this to a perpetuation of a species is ridiculous. If we were so utilitarian, we would sterilize people with physical and mental defects and grow babies in labs. Just because a baby grows inside a woman does not make it her property.

I know you hate this one, but fetuses are aborted left and right and many times the women doesn't know it. Chances are your wife and mother flushed a Mini Hen or two down the toilet.

Such is life.

Hate this one in the context of discussion of abortion because it's completely irrelevant.

[D1B]

Rights come from the collective wisdom and experiences of man.

How can that be? If rights come from man, how can they be "self evident?"

And, if this is so, how are they "rights?" If they come from man, they can be taken back by man. And if something can be taken back by man, they are not "rights."

Your answer doesn't make any sense.

I don't (and didn't) use the term, "self-evident". That's a term people like you use to poison the well and connect rights with god.

For better or worse, rights are conceived by man and are thus fluid and changing, and yes they can be taken away, and often are. The worst human rights abuses are happening before our eyes in the Middle East, the most "religious" place on earth.

[D1B]

I know you hate this one, but fetuses are aborted left and right and many times the women doesn't know it. Chances are your wife and mother flushed a Mini Hen or two down the toilet.

Such is life.

Hate this one in the context of discussion of abortion because it's completely irrelevant.

They aint babies is all. If they were, jesus would not have fucked up so bad that 20+% of all pregnancies end up on a tampon or in a septic tank.

[D1B]

Gee let me guess... The Bible..?



I'm pretty excited to see where this conversation goes - do tell Joe

Nice trick. Avoid the question -- and the internally inconsistent statement you made -- by making a joke.

You're pinned down and you can't joke your way out of it.

It's not a trick, Joe. He wants you to elaborate, and you didn't. So far, he has you in a head lock.

[Chizzang]

Gee let me guess... The Bible..?



I'm pretty excited to see where this conversation goes - do tell Joe

Nice trick. Avoid the question -- and the internally inconsistent statement you made -- by making a joke.

You're pinned down and you can't joke your way out of it.

Joe I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make
nor am I trying to joke my way out of anything
please tell us where "rights" come from

[UNI88]

In no way can this guys statement be taken as advocating rape. Only a dumbass or someone who hates anyone who doesn't agree with their political views and thus will attempt to slander them in any way possible no matter how obviously contrived would say so. He is a fundamentalist. He believes that his god has a grand plan and that everything that happens, good and bad, is part of that plan (it rains on the just and unjust equally). Jon is right here. If you believe that abortion is wrong because the fetus is a person and killing it is murder then you have to be against it in all circumstances, regardless of how awful. Double down on that if you also believe in the absolute sovereignty of god as fundamentalists do. If you read this guys comments it is clearly obvious to anyone with a brain that this is where he's coming from. I don't agree with the guy, but I'm sick of you donk **** pulling this kind of blatant half truth/twisting of words bullshit as I am of the Conklin assholes and their crap. I'd like to think nov 2nd would bring at least a reprieve, but I know it won't. I'm all in favor of good discourse, but this thread is not meant to create discourse.

[89Hen]

Hate this one in the context of discussion of abortion because it's completely irrelevant.

They aint babies is all. If they were, jesus would not have fucked up so bad that 20+% of all pregnancies end up on a tampon or in a septic tank.

completely irrelevant

[JoltinJoe]

Nice trick. Avoid the question -- and the internally inconsistent statement you made -- by making a joke.

You're pinned down and you can't joke your way out of it.

Joe I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make
nor am I trying to joke my way out of anything
please tell us where "rights" come from

Sorry, you have to figure it out for yourself. This is Socratic. You said something was a "self-evident right." People often speak of the "right" to this, the "right" to that ... Where do rights derive? If you have a "right" -- a genuine right -- it means that you possess that right, and no man or no government can take it away, but for an immoral act. Hint: so our "rights" are objective and must derive from an objective source. Right?

You see, when you say something is a "self-evident right," you are, without condition, declaring a belief in natural law. It makes no sense to say something is a "self-evident" right but then deny the authority of natural law.

[JoltinJoe]

I don't (and didn't) use the term, "self-evident". That's a term people like you use to poison the well and connect rights with god.

For better or worse, rights are conceived by man and are thus fluid and changing, and yes they can be taken away, and often are. The worst human rights abuses are happening before our eyes in the Middle East, the most "religious" place on earth.

But Cleets did, and I was responding to him.

But as for you, if you call something a right, but the government can morally take that "right" away, then it is not a right. If the government cannot take it away "morally," then it is a right. So the whole determination of whether something is a "right" depends on the morality of any action intended to disposses you of that "right." And such actions must be measured by some standard of morality, i.e., objectivity.

Since you do not believe in objective morality, you really do not believe in rights. I don't mean to throw fuel on the fire, but when you say "rights" are "fluid" and "conceived by man," you sorta sound like Chairman Mao.

You should compare the text of the "Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens" of the 1954 Mao Constitution, and the US Bill of Rights. One speaks in terms of what "rights" the citizens of the Republic of China possess, by virtue of being a citizen. One speaks in terms of what rights a citizen possesses and may assert against the government.

In one model, "personal rights" are derived from the government. In the other model, personal rights are superior to the government. I think you are well intentioned, but you are buying into the Mao model. And ultimately if a right is derived from the government, then the government possesses the right, for good reason or bad, to take it away. Which means it really wasn't a "right" in the first place.

[kalm]

I don't (and didn't) use the term, "self-evident". That's a term people like you use to poison the well and connect rights with god.

For better or worse, rights are conceived by man and are thus fluid and changing, and yes they can be taken away, and often are. The worst human rights abuses are happening before our eyes in the Middle East, the most "religious" place on earth.

But Cleets did, and I was responding to him.

But as for you, if you call something a right, but the government can morally take that "right" away, then it is not a right. If the government cannot take it away "morally," then it is a right. So the whole determination of whether something is a "right" depends on the morality of any action intended to disposses you of that "right." And such actions must be measured by some standard of morality, i.e., objectivity.

Since you do not believe in objective morality, you really do not believe in rights. I don't mean to throw fuel on the fire, but when you say "rights" are "fluid" and "conceived by man," you sorta sound like Chairman Mao.

You should compare the text of the "Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens" of the 1954 Mao Constitution, and the US Bill of Rights. One speaks in terms of what "rights" the citizens of the Republic of China possess, by virtue of being a citizen. One speaks in terms of what rights a citizen possesses and may assert against the government.

In one model, "personal rights" are derived from the government. In the other model, personal rights are superior to the government. I think you are well intentioned, but you are buying into the Mao model. And ultimately if a right is derived from the government, then the government possesses the right, for good reason or bad, to take it away. Which means it really wasn't a "right" in the first place.

Let's start with this question: where do "self-evident rights" come from?

You call it "God" but it could just as easily be described as human experience and cooperation. And it occurs in other species too.

[89Hen]

And it occurs in other species too.

Self-evident rights? I'd like to hear more on this.

[Chizzang]

Human evolution...
We started off attributing all acts beyond our understanding - to God
Over time we came to discover - through the scientific method - using unbiased criteria and trial and error - that there were indeed naturally occurring phenomenon

Naturally occurring phenomenon
self evident through unbiased study methods

Not nearly as complicated as you'd like it to be I think...

[kalm]

And it occurs in other species too.

Self-evident rights? I'd like to hear more on this.

Cooperation and experience.

[89Hen]

Self-evident rights? I'd like to hear more on this.

Cooperation and experience.

That's a far cry from self-evident rights IMO.

http://www.animalattorney.com/

[death dealer]

Joe I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make
nor am I trying to joke my way out of anything
please tell us where "rights" come from

Sorry, you have to figure it out for yourself. This is Socratic. You said something was a "self-evident right." People often speak of the "right" to this, the "right" to that ... Where do rights derive? If you have a "right" -- a genuine right -- it means that you possess that right, and no man or no government can take it away, but for an immoral act. Hint: so our "rights" are objective and must derive from an objective source. Right?

You see, when you say something is a "self-evident right," you are, without condition, declaring a belief in natural law. It makes no sense to say something is a "self-evident" right but then deny the authority of natural law.

He's right. Say what you want D1B, but here he has both of you by the short hairs.

[Chizzang]

Sorry, you have to figure it out for yourself. This is Socratic. You said something was a "self-evident right." People often speak of the "right" to this, the "right" to that ... Where do rights derive? If you have a "right" -- a genuine right -- it means that you possess that right, and no man or no government can take it away, but for an immoral act. Hint: so our "rights" are objective and must derive from an objective source. Right?

You see, when you say something is a "self-evident right," you are, without condition, declaring a belief in natural law. It makes no sense to say something is a "self-evident" right but then deny the authority of natural law.

He's right. Say what you want D1B, but here he has both of you by the short hairs.

I still don't see how an observable law relating to natural phenomenon is such a "gatcha" moment...
explain it to me as though I were a retarded child