Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Vis a vis sentience. I can kill an amoeba and it's dead. It was never sentient. Just like a clump of cells people love to calkl a child.

Hehe youre gonna have to take the L on this one.

You said dead. I addressed that under the context of the first trimester. An amoeba will never be anything but an amoeba but those clumps of cells will be a human being.

That's nice. Doesn't really address the point of not ever having self awareness.

Again, poll the dead and get a back to me.

What your want is 'wards of the state' (your quote). That exists, now you'll have more.

"My want" is inaccurate. The agreed reality is that well have more wards of the state. Not great, but better than death.

It is a copout.

Weird, its like i literally just said that. Should I go full bore anti abortion? Because as I offer my compromise, it not being good enough isnt swaying me your way.

Utopian ideals are for fools. There's a thing called the real world and I'm asking people to look at it because that's where things actually happen. Based on this you have no solution.

Indeed. Utopias are for fools.

You keep skirting my proposed solutions. Thats fine.

Keep it in your pants. Close your legs. Prophylactics > abortion.

If these got anywhere near the baby killing zealot rhetoric, we may just have an effect.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You seem to live in a much different reality than I see around me. What color is the sky where you are?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JinMI
You said dead.

Yeah, because when it's aborted it's dead. FFS.

Again, poll the dead and get a back to me.

Sure. Get your Ouija Board.

The agreed reality is that well have more wards of the state. Not great, but better than death.

Hopefully you're not one of those small government types because this would make you a tax and spend liberal now.

Indeed. Utopias are for fools.

You keep skirting my proposed solutions. Thats fine.

I addressed them, they are either in place now or reliant on behavioral changes spurred by legislation, A.K.A. 'morality laws'. Those don't work, ask bootleggers.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
You seem to live in a much different reality than I see around me.

That's the reality and I have the links to prove it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Finally? I addressed you direct when you asked.

No need to lie.

How many times were you asked?

Twice, and I answered both times.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Right, because that was the only item I mentioned- the entirety of my argument.

You aren't fooling anyone with your trolling.

originally posted by: JinMI
Twice, and I answered both times.

Nope:

originally posted by: loam
Right, because that was the only item I mentioned- the entirety of my argument.

It's part of it, son, after you got all outrage-y about me saying this is what it would entail.

Oh, the sweet, sweet irony. It's scrumptious.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah, because when it's aborted it's dead. FFS.

That makes no contextual sense to this line of conversation. Nice try though.

Sure. Get your Ouija Board.

Im using mine at the moment. Your claim so use yours.

Hopefully you're not one of those small government types because this would make you a tax and spend liberal now.

Dead babies < government spending. Its a fault i guess. How much do abortions cost the govt?

I addressed them, they are either in place now or reliant on behavioral changes spurred by legislation, A.K.A. 'morality laws'. Those don't work, ask bootleggers.

And im saying an abortion safety net isnt moral either.

originally posted by: JinMI
That makes no contextual sense to this line of conversation. Nice try though.

A non-sentient clump of cells, once aborted, never knew it was alive. A child, born into a system where love is not provided knows this. That's the 'context'.

Your claim so use yours.

You're the one who wants to talk to dead people. Knock yourself out.

Dead babies < government spending. Its a fault i guess. How much do abortions cost the govt?

Zero. And if it's not zero it's waaaaaaay more than 18 years of expenses for someone you're not capable of caring for in the manner that they should be cared for, i.e. loved.

And im saying an abortion safety net isnt moral either.

No one gives a **** about people's personal morals. They should keep them to themselves.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: loam
Right, because that was the only item I mentioned- the entirety of my argument.

It's part of it, son, after you got all outrage-y about me saying this is what it would entail.

Oh, the sweet, sweet irony. It's scrumptious.

Doubtful I'm of an age where I could be your son.

But ok Timmy, is it time for your bath?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh, 3 times I answered.

Thanks.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh, 3 times I answered.

Thanks.

a reply to: loam

You're not my home slice either, it's called a 'euphemism'. Have you started petitioning your elected representatives to help increase the welfare state to pay for these kids you want added to the system? Another tax and spender...

a reply to: JinMI

That was actually the first time I asked, you didn't answer.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: loam

... 'euphemism'...

Yes. You seem to enjoy those...like when you use the word 'love' when justifying your support for murdering unborn children.

originally posted by: loam
Yes. You seem to enjoy those...like when you use the word 'love' when justifying your support for murdering unborn children.

Non-sentient clumps of cells are not children, they cannot experience love nor any other emotion. I know the religious wackos like to think this is possible but that's mostly owing to them being wacko.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So when are they not just a clump of cells?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A non-sentient clump of cells, once aborted, never knew it was alive. A child, born into a system where love is not provided know this. That's the 'context'.

So by this logic we can kill wards of the state because Auggie KNOWS they are unloved and are since thats the worse thing liek ever, we should kill em because it aligns with the notion of small govt.....

Did I get the logic right?

You're the one who wants to talk to dead people. Knock yourself out.

No. Youre the one claiming that being dead is preferable than being unloved.

Zero. And if it's not zero it's waaaaaaay more than 18 years of expenses for someone you're not capable of caring for in the manner that they should be cared for, i.e. loved.

Free? Call me skeptical.

So ok, above $1...somewhere.

How much did govt just spend "to even save one life!!"

Ok, maybe abit too far off topic.
How about applying the dollar amount to current living welfare recipients? Should we do a cost analysis to see if they are worthy of continued life?

No one gives a **** about people's personal morals. They should keep them to themselves.

Except when they support not killing babies..

Right....


Right?

originally posted by: JinMI
So by this logic we can kill wards of the state...

No, I think your logic is malfunctioning at this point, if you were ever even applying any.

Youre the one claiming that being dead is preferable than being unloved.

Dead AND unaware that you were ever alive. You know, like a zygote.

OK, maybe abit too far off topic.
How about applying the dollar amount to current living welfare recipients? Should we do a cost analysis to see if they are worthy of continued life?

Yeah, it's way off topic. But it is always fun to watch the small government people advocate for more government when it aligns with their feelz.

Except when they support not killing babies..

Nope, not even then. Your personal morals don't mean **** to me.