The Democrat Utopia

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Caveman said:

 

This is FAKE NEWS. Gametes are sex cells necessary for reproduction, but they are not organisms. You will never find a self-propagating colony of sperm roaming the countryside, living off the land.

 

If I had a dollar for every time I've said this.......

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 1/15/2019 at 8:04 PM, knapplc said:

 

 

 

How do you spout off about White privilege and not know your guest is Black? 

 

I don't know. But everyone knows Ben Carson is black, and that doesn't mean his claim that Obamacare is worse than slavery isn't stunningly ignorant and racist.

[Caveman]

22 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I went with the first Google search. BBC Focus Magazine:
 

 

 

It seems to me on Google that there are multiple reputable sources disagreeing with each other on this and saying it depends on the definition of living organism. If you have a biology or zoology degree, I trust your opinion

 

It's not that important to my point on abortion though. You have to have sperm to make a baby. Denying that sperm a way to get to the egg might be stopping the destiny of one of them to create a baby.

 

It's true that the definition of organism can become contentious, especially when discussing viruses, but sperm (and ova) do not have that burden. Us, human beings, are the organism. Our gametes are just one of the many cogs necessary for propagation of the species. They are no more organisms than our own white blood cells or tree pollen (also reproductive cells).

 

My background is in science, but I am not expert in zoology. I will say though, media reports often are poorly worded/confusing when it comes to subjects in science and medicine. Not necessarily enough to alter the main point, but enough to muddy in-depth discussion and debate.

[Moiraine]

44 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

As I've said before, this is incredibly disingenuous, and frankly, a pretty stupid defense of murdering human beings in a womb.

 

 

The argument is on whether they're humans or not. It's not murder if they're not. It is if they are. You can try to paint it as black and white all you want, but it isn't.

[B.B. Hemingway]

11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The argument is on whether they're humans or not. It's not murder if they're not. It is if they are. You can try to paint it as black and white all you want, but it isn't.

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. Reality is that over 90% of abortions are performed when there is no risk to the mother, or baby. You can try and justify it any way you like.

[Moiraine]

11 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. Reality is that over 90% of abortions are performed when there is no risk to the mother, or baby. You can try and justify it any way you like.

 

 

I'm pro life. But there is no point in discussing the topic with anyone if you think the pro choice side is ok with murder. They're not. They don't think it's murder. And there is no point in discussing the topic with anyone if you think the pro life side hates women. They don't. They think it's murder and it's about the baby's life. It's stupid to make it out to be only about baby murdering on one side or about women's rights on the other. There is literally ZERO point in discussing it at all if you have either of those view points.

 

 

You started this conversation specifically about late term abortions. It stands to reason that most women who carry a baby that long wanted to have it. You didn't answer Landlord's question about what % of late term abortions were due to health. In my opinion it doesn't matter what most are, and I could be wrong with my reasoning. They can make a law that the mother's life has to be in danger, according to the doctor(s), if they want a late term abortion. We can't buy drugs without a prescription from a Dr. So it shouldn't be difficult make it so you can't abort a baby unless the mom's health is at stake. It shouldn't be banned altogether. I'm pro life, but the parents should be able to choose the life of the mother over that of the baby if they want.

[B.B. Hemingway]

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I'm pro life. But there is no point in discussing the topic with anyone if you think the pro choice side is ok with murder. They're not. They don't think it's murder. And there is no point in discussing the topic with anyone if you think the pro life side hates women. They don't. They think it's murder and it's about the baby's life. 

 

Why do people argue about whether it's immoral to deny, or allow, access to illegal aliens at our southern border. If we each have our own opinions, and apparently we can both be right, why argue? What's the point.

[Moiraine]

11 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Why do people argue about whether it's immoral to deny, or allow, access to illegal aliens at our southern border. If we each have our own opinions, and apparently we can both be right, why argue? What's the point.

 

 

Arguing is perfectly fine. Starting out by saying one side is fine with baby-murdering or the other is against women's rights are non starters. There is no discussion to be had with that. And both are wrong. There is no room for a discussion if you see abortion as a black and white topic where one side is evil. Saying that abortion is murdering babies is perfectly fine, but arguing that all pro choice people, who don't think abortion is murdering babies, are fine with killing babies, is not correct.

There are opinions about your example you could say the same thing about.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Just now, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Why do people argue about whether it's immoral to deny, or allow, access to illegal aliens at our southern border. If we each have our own opinions, and apparently we can both be right, why argue? What's the point.

 

Language is important. Virtually no one thinks we should not address the issue of illegal aliens in this country, who come in many forms and through various points of entry.

 

There is some moral nuance when it comes to men, women, and children seeking safety, refuge, or amnesty, who summarily get separated and put into cages in an extremely selective and political application of the law. 

 

And would a $50 billion taxpayer wall solve any of these problems? That's a moral question, too, given how many other problems could be addressed with $50 billion. 

 

But abortion seems entirely different to me. An eternal conundrum. Never an easy argument. 

[ZRod]

42 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. Reality is that over 90% of abortions are performed when there is no risk to the mother, or baby. You can try and justify it any way you like.

And you can try to realize that things aren't as black and white as you paint them.

 

It's interesting that you say your belief isn't based on religious doctrine, and yet they are about the only group who believe there is no grey area in this issue. I just hope your stance on life applies to all areas of it such as war, the death penalty, etc.

[B.B. Hemingway]

4 minutes ago, ZRod said:

And you can try to realize that things aren't as black and white as you paint them.

 

It's interesting that you say your belief isn't based on religious doctrine, and yet they are about the only group who believe there is no grey area in this issue. I just hope your stance on life applies to all areas of it such as war, the death penalty, etc.

 

Are you really to conflate the lives of the defenseless unborn, and someone that has performed heinous enough crimes to deserve the death penalty? Holy hell.

[ZRod]

6 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Are you really to conflate the lives of the defenseless unborn, and someone that has performed heinous enough crimes to deserve the death penalty? Holy hell.

Holy hell, are you pro-life or not? Some of those people on death row are, infact, innocent of the crime they have been convicted of.

[B.B. Hemingway]

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Holy hell are you probably life or not? Some of those people on death row are, infact, innocent of the crime they have been convicted of.

 

EVERY fetus is innocent.

 

Using the presumption of innocence to defend abortion, even in a roundabout way, is.... interesting.

[ZRod]

3 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

EVERY fetus is innocent.

 

Using the presumption of innocence to defend abortion, even in a roundabout way, is.... interesting.

I'm using your presumption not mine. And I apologise, I used innocent instead of your defenseless. 

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

EVERY fetus is innocent.

As are all the children who are suffering or dying of starvation, homelessness, and lack of healthcare, yet the same people that are vote to end abortion also vote for the party that refuses to end these things and even make them worse. And there's no ethical or moral question about whether already born children are a person or alive.

 

If the pro-life crowd wants me to take their politics seriously, then they need to act seriously on issues where there's absolutely no question that children are being harmed. Until then, it just looks like words empty of morality.