Should men have a say in abortion ?

Either you cannot comprehend how the law is an ass, or you can, but choose to pretend you can't for the sake of employing a dishonest argument.
Either way, there is not much more I can say that I haven't said already.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can answer the question: Are you in favour of capital punishment for women who have abortions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are just walking in circles.
What part don't you agree with?
The part where I give a list of duties that belong exclusively to heads of state, namely the government?

The part where you assert that, for the most part, it is an unnecessary impediment to have people interfere in the above stated duties?

Or the part, several posts later, where you emphatically assert its your right to offer input/influence government?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aaah ... so the lack of comprehsion is feigned, after all.

(Click -Click ... that's the sound of a loaded question, coming from you)

Because any loss of life that can be traced to the activities of another is always met with capital punishment, right? I mean just look at all those CEOs of cigerette companies on death row !!!??

 

The question is what do YOU disagree with in what I said?

And my response is that the government should minimize their interference in most of those areas.

Is that what I said? I thought I was clear that it was the government that should not interfere.

It is completely consistent for me to tell the government sbout things I don't want them to interfere in.

 

We're not talking about "any loss of life". We're talking about murder.

There are many jurisdictions that prescribe capital punishment. If you think abortion is murder, aren't women who have abortions murderers? Shouldn't they be executed? Or in jurisdictions that don't have capital punishment, imprisoned?

 

Which is kind of difficult to answer when you struggle to keep your story straight.

The question was nothing about government interference. It was about "intimate bearing" being the sole qualification for influencing the outcome of an issue.

You ...Since the topic is, "Should men have a say in abortion ?" I'd say the least broken alternative is the one with the least meddling by outsiders.

Me ....Do you feel the same about other issues in society? Like the issues around the deployment of the military, resource allocation and the economy, criminal justice and the legal system and so forth?
If you want to play "intimate bearing" as the basis for advocacy, it seems that a vast majority of people are not permitted to voice input on practically anything within the jurisdiction of their society.

You .... For the most part, yes.

We can only go by your words.

Going by your words, I'm afraid not. It is completely inconsistent.

 

Yes, governments trying to ban abortions are outsiders meddling in something that should concern only a woman and her doctor.

All of which are government functions, so yes, it is about government interference.

Yes, I stand by that. No redacting. If you want to discuss any of those issues of government interference in an appropriate topic, feel free to do so.

 

Well, you did say abortion.
Now you just changed it to murder.
Do you think it would help your argument if you said "I am not asking loaded questions."?

There are also many jurisdictions that surround the fate of individuals whose activities contribute to the loss of life of another.
Consider how many CEOs of cigerette companies are on death row.
Or consider the paltry number of individuals that were tried for war crimes in post WW2 japan and germany.

To get back to the Dickens quote (which threatens to undo this feigned ignorance underpinning all these loaded questions), the law is an ass, and its eyes are opened with experience.

 

Abortion has been called murder long before I ever mentioned it. Do you think abortion is murder?

 

You see, this is why I can't take you seriously.
Perhaps the first time it could be forgiven as a lapse of attention, but this is the second consecutive time you edited out this .....

If you want to play "intimatebearing" as the basis for advocacy, it seems that a vast majority of people are not permitted to voice input on practically anything within thejurisdiction of their society.

No, its not about government interference. Its about civilians "interfering" with government .... which, several posts later you assert is something you are not at all in favour of.

I think we're done here. You are just being dishonest.

 

Are there any females involved in this discussion?

 

Of course it's about government interference. Abortion wouldn't be an issue at all if it wasn't for government interference.

Again, have you never heard of democracy? In a democracy, it is the citizen's right and duty to "interfere" with the government when the government is wrong.

 

And you edit it out a third time!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have pointed out that the statement does not reflect on anything I said. I don't intend to repeat that every time you repeat your error.

 

More deceit. Editing it out 3 times in a row for the sake of constructing an imaginary narrative is not how you address something.

 

"Editing out" is not a crime. The only reason I quote you at all is so that people can see where you're wrong.

The wrong way to address something is your way, including your consistent refusal to answer a straightforward question like, "Do you consider abortion murder?"

 

Now I truly understand why Alan Shore had a pathological aversion bobo dolls!

 

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

So, if the law makes abortion illegal, it becomes Murder. Is that what you fear?

 

handing a child some drugs that are strong enough to kill the child, and then watching the child eat the drugs and then die.
is that murder ? in american law ?
the person did not kill the child
the drugs did.
the child took them of their own free will.

surely a christian child is by right allowed to have a free will ?

is this where your morality of murder sits ?

NOTE
it is not your child so you are not legally bound to provide necessities of life.
the drug is paracetamol so it is not illegal
and you do not hand it to the child, you simply put a few packets down on the cafe table you are sitting at, leave some money for the bill and walk off.

as you get in the distance you turn around and see what may look like the child eating several packets of it... but your not really sure and your late for your bible class.

no crime has been committed so there is no need for any morality ?


this is your moral position you are arguing from.
i suggest you are in fact borderline-narcissistic-sociopaths with some type of emotional disassociation issue that allows you to subjectively remove the human aspect from a living person at will and apply it as your ego sees fit to serve yourself.

you perceive the debate to be a game and the subjects just pawns for your own need to win and keep yourself in your world of all about you being all right all the time.

though you know you cant personalize the debate into the actual women because then you will lose because you knowingly are being the psychopath to disregard her human feelings and human rights.

the funny thing is that you probably think people dont realize that about you.


please proceed to couch that as an opinion with its sudden onset of human rights given to self validate your position of lack of empathic moral equity.

like your empathy thread
mocking people in grief.
and pretending to be someone who cares from a distance

the distance is the gap between empathy and sadism.

you want your opinion to be validated by moral collective agreement, but you wont stand behind the morality that your using and espousing.
because the morality of the real working model your using is in fact narcissistic dissasociation for self preservation.
thats ok, we all have our issues.
but why pretend to yourself and make that out to be a real opinion.
that's your lie to yourself and it doesn't stand up to the debate.
it is a common lie amongst Christians and other religious people who have no solid moral base line of human rights equity.

that is why religion is incapable of debating the issue and preaches it as a "faith" concept seeking fascist control and fascist demand of its cult members to do as they say and vote against abortion rights.

maybe one day you will learn, maybe you wont.

until you grow up to be an empathic adult, maybe we should let the women decide about their own bodys.