The Democrat Utopia

[B.B. Hemingway]

 

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

 

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.

 

The same could literally be said for the pro-abortion crowd.... The left's stance on abortion gives them no moral leg to stand on. None.

[RedDenver]

Just now, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

 

The same could literally be said for the pro-abortion crowd.... The left's stance on abortion gives them no moral leg to stand on. None.

That doesn't follow from anything I've said. In what way does the pro-choice voters not support already born children?

[B.B. Hemingway]

Just now, RedDenver said:

That doesn't follow from anything I've said. In what way does the pro-choice voters not support already born children?

 

They don't support unborn children. It's the same argument that can be made from pro-life supports:

 

Pro-abortion:

 

Supports killing unborn children -----> believes in helping the unfortunate

 

Pro-Life:

 

Supposedly doesn't believe in supporting the unfortunate --------> Supports the right to live of the unborn.

[knapplc]

1 hour 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.

 

How do you sleep at night knowing millions of people are having their appendix removed every day?

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

How do you sleep at night knowing millions of people are having their appendix removed every day?

 

 

Okay.

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

 

Okay.

 

Are you saying appendectomies don't bother you?

[Caveman]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

Are you saying appendectomies don't bother you?

 

What's the scoop?

[RedDenver]

13 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

They don't support unborn children. It's the same argument that can be made from pro-life supports:

 

Pro-abortion:

 

Supports killing unborn children -----> believes in helping the unfortunate

 

Pro-Life:

 

Supposedly doesn't believe in supporting the unfortunate --------> Supports the right to live of the unborn.

No, you're missing the point and making a circular argument.

 

You're making the pro-life argument that we should ban abortion because that protects children by your definition of what are and aren't children. I'm making the argument that by that definition and argument, all the other children that aren't fetuses should also be protected. The contradiction I'm pointing out is that the pro-life group doesn't vote to protect non-fetus children; therefore, that contradiction undermines the entire argument based on morality.

 

The pro-choice argument doesn't have that contradiction because they have a different definition of what is and isn't a child. You're using your own definition to call the pro-choice crowd immoral, but that's not a contradiction for them because they don't agree with your definition.

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Are you saying appendectomies don't bother you?

 

I'll assume are getting ready to equate abortions with appendectomies, so I'll save you having to make another post, by saying that I think the comparison is awful.

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

 

The pro-choice argument doesn't have that contradiction because they have a different definition of what is and isn't a child. 

 

This kind of ignorance doesn't justify the left's immorality.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I'll assume are getting ready to equate abortions with appendectomies, so I'll save you having to make another post, by saying that I think the comparison is awful.

 

If the point is so obvious to you, then you could dispense with the snarky "whatever helps you sleep at night" responses.

 

If you know it's not a life to some people, you know why they have no qualms about abortion.  Knowing that, the argument here seems just to be for the sake of argument.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

This kind of ignorance doesn't justify the left's immorality.

Except that you're missing the obvious reversal that it might be you that is ignorant. And you're avoiding having to address the contradiction I've pointed out.

[B.B. Hemingway]

14 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

If the point is so obvious to you, then you could dispense with the snarky "whatever helps you sleep at night" responses.

 

If you know it's not a life to some people, you know why they have no qualms about abortion.  Knowing that, the argument here seems just to be for the sake of argument.

 

White supremacists don't think  the lives of black people have any value. Or Hitler with the Jews. You disagree. I disagree. But we know they don't value those lives. So why take them to task on it?

 

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Except that you're missing the obvious reversal that it might be you that is ignorant.

 

I'll assume you take this into account when you argue or defend anything? No matter how insane, or immoral the other side sounds?

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

White supremacists don't think  the lives of black people have any value. You disagree. I disagree. But we know they don't value those lives. So why take them to task on it?

 

The appendix analogy is more apt. Whatever racists think about other humans, they're talking about definable humans. There is no consensus on when life begins in the womb.

 

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

The appendix analogy is more apt. Whatever racists think about other humans, they're talking about definable humans. There is no consensus on when life begins in the womb.

 

 

 

 

No it's not. 

 

With the history in this world of slavery, and genocide; I'd imagine there would be a lot of people that would have argued with you on what makes a definable human.