Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

[PointOfViewGun]

It doesn't. It is all evil. This is the position you're defending. There is no condition by which you disagree with on demand abortion. It is the one issue for which you pretend to be color blind, class blind, gender blind, it's just open season on killing babies for reasons of convenience in your argument. The most intellectually dishonest portion of your argument, and ironically the least racist, is the viability debate. You are laboring under the delusional belief that somehow a three year old could just exist independently in a was a three week old could not.

Both three weeks old baby and a three year old kid would be dependent on societal support and not the biological support of a single woman. Your earlier stated position depended on uniqueness of a baby's genes. Are you calling that position evil as well? Because when you say "it is all evil" it also includes that position.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I think I've been very clear. Killing babies is evil. The standard of justifying the killing of babies/toddlers/children on the basis of "viability" is also evil. We need to end this King Herod fanboy era.

[PointOfViewGun]

I think I've been very clear. Killing babies is evil. The standard of justifying the killing of babies/toddlers/children on the basis of "viability" is also evil. We need to end this King Herod fanboy era.

I take you didn't pay attention earlier and failed to respond accurately which made you make an over-encompassing statement that pretty much contradicted your own stance and now don't want to acknowledge it. Fine, fine. You need to remind yourself that we're not talking about killing a baby, toddler or a child. We're talking about aborting a fetus where most people champion for earlier stages rather than the latter ones.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Fetus is Latin for offspring. Your confusion about what qualifies as a human life does not diminish my argument at all. It demonstrates your argument as ignorant of basic human biology as well as linguistics. Further, your disingenuous effort to use linguistics to redefine human life in an effort to advance your argument underscores your wanton disregard for human life. The racial eugenicist abortionist who advocated for the destruction of the black race, Margaret Sanger, would be proud, but I am not so easily deceived.

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. [Explaining rationale for using prominent black leaders to advocate birth control and abortion]” - Margaret Sanger

So my question for you is this: Do you agree with Margaret Sanger that the most effective way to exterminate the negro population is through abortion?

[PointOfViewGun]

Fetus is Latin for offspring. Your confusion about what qualifies as a human life does not diminish my argument at all. It demonstrates your argument as ignorant of basic human biology as well as linguistics. Further, your disingenuous effort to use linguistics to redefine human life in an effort to advance your argument underscores your wanton disregard for human life. The racial eugenicist abortionist who advocated for the destruction of the black race, Margaret Sanger, would be proud, but I am not so easily deceived.

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. [Explaining rationale for using prominent black leaders to advocate birth control and abortion]” - Margaret Sanger

So my question for you is this: Do you agree with Margaret Sanger that the most effective way to exterminate the negro population is through abortion?

I take it the lack of merit in your position pushes you to sensationalize your language as well as to dive into tangents such as your last question. That's fine. Each to its own. However, we're not speaking Latin. We're also not concerned with your feelings on my arguments. I'm more interested in your arguments which is lacking at this point.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Which part was sensationalized? Which part was untrue?

Predictably, the argument is empty and it has ignored my entire position. Your argument has to deflect from the point because it has no point. So I will reiterate:

Do you agree with Margaret Sanger that the most effective way to exterminate the negro population is through abortion?

Honestly these posts are just such lazy cope mechanisms of cognitive dissonance and it isn't really worth my time. The constant deflections and meta "hurr durr this isn't how you debate" isn't fooling anyone. I was not speaking Latin until your argument insisted upon speaking Latin in the most disingenuous way imaginable to support your argument's position. Try speaking tot he merit for once.

[Heathen Hammer]

The independence levels are not arbitrary among themselves. A fetus has biological dependence on a single host while a baby has societal dependence. This is not a debate over what's human and what's not. Any reason you're trying to push the discussion there?

That doesn't answer my question. You said that individuals with insufficient level of independence aren't human and do not deserve to live. We are just trying to understand which demographics do you consider non-human and unworthy of life.

[PointOfViewGun]

That doesn't answer my question. You said that individuals with insufficient level of independence aren't human and do not deserve to live. We are just trying to understand which demographics do you consider non-human and unworthy of life.

My response to your post does address your assertion from a point of principle since I differentiated between biological and social dependence. What about it confuses you?

[Sir Adrian]

The independence levels are not arbitrary among themselves. A fetus has biological dependence on a single host while a baby has societal dependence. This is not a debate over what's human and what's not. Any reason you're trying to push the discussion there?

I think this is the first time I've seen a TWC comment argue that the handicapped, paralyzed and terminally ill and virtually anyone who needs blood donations to live is sub-human or inhuman just to push an abortion agenda. WOW.


PS: A human is not defined by levels of dependence. An adult possum is "biologically independent" but it is distinctly not human and you would be extremely hard pressed to argue that it is.

[PointOfViewGun]

I think this is the first time I've seen a TWC comment argue that the handicapped, paralyzed and terminally ill and virtually anyone who needs blood donations to live is sub-human or inhuman just to push an abortion agenda. WOW.
PS: A human is not defined by levels of dependence. An adult possum is "biologically independent" but it is distinctly not human and you would be extremely hard pressed to argue that it is.

Too bad you still haven't. None of those links you try to make are examples of biological dependency. The possum tangent, however, is especially laughable. A possum is a possum, not a human fetus nor a human being.

[Heathen Hammer]

My response to your post does address your assertion from a point of principle since I differentiated between biological and social dependence. What about it confuses you?

This is the third time you are trying to dodge this. You asserted that people with certain level of dependence do not have a right to live. We are just asking you to clarify which demographics do you consider with such level of dependence that they are subhuman and bereft of right to live.

[PointOfViewGun]

This is the third time you are trying to dodge this. You asserted that people with certain level of dependence do not have a right to live. We are just asking you to clarify which demographics do you consider with such level of dependence that they are subhuman and bereft of right to live.

Except I'm not differentiating between levels of dependence but types of dependence. This is the third time I'm pointing that out? What part of it confuses you?

[The spartan]

I think I've been very clear. Killing babies is evil. The standard of justifying the killing of babies/toddlers/children on the basis of "viability" is also evil. We need to end this King Herod fanboy era.

Do you think that people who support legal access to abortion believe it's a justified killing of a baby? Or do they believe a newly fertilized embryo is NOT a baby? Because 99%+ of people I know think killing babies is wrong, regardless of political affiliation (which also makes pro-lifers who want exceptions for rape extra weird to me).

[Heathen Hammer]

Except I'm not differentiating between levels of dependence but types of dependence.

You are still not explaining which types of dependent people are subhuman and should die according to your system of values.

Do you think that people who support legal access to abortion believe it's a justified killing of a baby? Or do they believe a newly fertilized embryo is NOT a baby? Because 99%+ of people I know think killing babies is wrong, regardless of political affiliation (which also makes pro-lifers who want exceptions for rape extra weird to me).

And another progressive democratic socialist goes into "well, should we consider this part of demographic as really human" levels of eugenics.
I'm not even anti-abortion, but holy cow, do majority of pro-choice people manage to make the most unhinged religious pro-lifers sound reasonable in comparison.

[PointOfViewGun]

You are still not explaining which types of dependent people are subhuman and should die according to your system of values.

I kinda already did. I don't know how I can make it more obvious.

[Sir Adrian]

You haven't. You just claimed that if you are biologically dependent you are not human and stopped there.

In other words all adult humans who are biologically dependent (i.e. those who need dialysis, those who need chemo, those who need regular blood transfusions) are not human in your view.

[PointOfViewGun]

You haven't. You just claimed that if you are biologically dependent you are not human and stopped there.
In other words all adult humans who are biologically dependent (i.e. those who need dialysis, those who need chemo, those who need regular blood transfusions) are not human in your view.

Those are not biological dependencies.

[mishkin]

It's your body and it's your responsibility, and whoever doesn't like it can say it's murder and burst into tears at home.

[Love Mountain]

It's your body and it's your responsibility, and whoever doesn't like it can say it's murder and burst into tears at home.

The crocodile tears over the unborn is particularly comical when we consider how little the Right actually cares for human life. If people want to call abortion murder, fine. It is murder in the same way that my morning ejaculation routine is also murder. I am happy to be a murderer-in-arms with my fellow women.

[Heathen Hammer]

The crocodile tears over "my body my choice" are particularly comical, when we consider how little the Left actually cares for body autonomy, given their propensity to support policies like vaccine mandates.
See, I can do that too, except my argument actually makes sense.