Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
The right to life, from a moral standpoint
The right to life, from a moral standpoint
By SJConspirator
25 Jun 2022 8:00 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
25 Jun 2022 8:00 pm
The unborn should be protected, no doubt. But is it the duty of the state to protect the unborn, or the duty of the mother and immediate Family?
If the duty of the state is to dictate to a woman she must nanny, that is literally a nanny state.
if it is the duty of the state to protect the unborn, why is this duty abdicated the moment the baby is Born? Is a 3 day old no less innocent and vulnerable than a Fetus?
If the duty of the state is to dictate to a woman she must nanny, that is literally a nanny state.
if it is the duty of the state to protect the unborn, why is this duty abdicated the moment the baby is Born? Is a 3 day old no less innocent and vulnerable than a Fetus?
25 Jun 2022 8:20 pm
25 Jun 2022 9:12 pm
25 Jun 2022 9:39 pm
25 Jun 2022 9:52 pm
How is a 3 day old baby not protected? We have laws that protect against harm to anyone regardless of age.SJConspirator » 25 Jun 2022, 8:00 pm » wrote: ↑
if it is the duty of the state to protect the unborn, why is this duty abdicated the moment the baby is Born? Is a 3 day old no less innocent and vulnerable than a Fetus?
Retarded Horse's view on women.
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
- I LOVE IT WHEN A CRACK WHORE GETS BEAT UP Image
- I WANT TO WATCH YOU BEAT YOUR CRACK WHORE WIFE Image Image Image
- PUT THAT WIFE BEATER ON AND GET BUSY
25 Jun 2022 10:31 pm
Vegas » 25 Jun 2022, 9:52 pm » wrote: ↑ How is a 3 day old baby not protected? We have laws that protect against harm to anyone regardless of age.
Protect means shelter them in an orphanage. Of course it’s not legal to kill them.
25 Jun 2022 11:07 pm
SJConspirator » 25 Jun 2022, 10:31 pm » wrote: ↑ Protect means shelter them in an orphanage. Of course it’s not legal to kill them.
If nobody claimed a newborn, the state would put them in a place where they would be safe. I guess I am not understanding the question.
Retarded Horse's view on women.
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
- I LOVE IT WHEN A CRACK WHORE GETS BEAT UP Image
- I WANT TO WATCH YOU BEAT YOUR CRACK WHORE WIFE Image Image Image
- PUT THAT WIFE BEATER ON AND GET BUSY
25 Jun 2022 11:13 pm
Vegas » 25 Jun 2022, 11:07 pm » wrote: ↑ If nobody claimed a newborn, the state would put them in a place where they would be safe. I guess I am not understanding the question.
Maybe you think that poor, unwanted kids are well taken care of in this country, I disagree
https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts
25 Jun 2022 11:30 pm
SJConspirator » 25 Jun 2022, 8:00 pm » wrote: ↑ The unborn should be protected, no doubt. But is it the duty of the state to protect the unborn, or the duty of the mother and immediate Family?
If the duty of the state is to dictate to a woman she must nanny, that is literally a nanny state.
if it is the duty of the state to protect the unborn, why is this duty abdicated the moment the baby is Born? Is a 3 day old no less innocent and vulnerable than a Fetus?
Valuing life is the right thing to do.
26 Jun 2022 12:07 am
SJConspirator » 25 Jun 2022, 8:00 pm » wrote: ↑ The unborn should be protected, no doubt. But is it the duty of the state to protect the unborn, or the duty of the mother and immediate Family?
If the duty of the state is to dictate to a woman she must nanny, that is literally a nanny state.
if it is the duty of the state to protect the unborn, why is this duty abdicated the moment the baby is Born? Is a 3 day old no less innocent and vulnerable than a Fetus?
If the woman doesn't want the baby..then let her kill it.
Do we want MORE children to grow up unwanted and spend years suffering as a result..?
If we as a society have any hope..we should encourage these people to abort their kids.
26 Jun 2022 12:33 pm
I agree that we should do something about this. But killing them before they are born does nothing to solve the problem. If that is the solution, then why not just kill any unwanted child, born or not? It makes no sense.SJConspirator » 25 Jun 2022, 11:13 pm » wrote: ↑ Maybe you think that poor, unwanted kids are well taken care of in this country, I disagree
https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts
Retarded Horse's view on women.
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
- I LOVE IT WHEN A CRACK WHORE GETS BEAT UP Image
- I WANT TO WATCH YOU BEAT YOUR CRACK WHORE WIFE Image Image Image
- PUT THAT WIFE BEATER ON AND GET BUSY
26 Jun 2022 2:33 pm
Vegas » 26 Jun 2022, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑ I agree that we should do something about this. But killing them before they are born does nothing to solve the problem. If that is the solution, then why not just kill any unwanted child, born or not? It makes no sense.
Fair enough. Some pro lifers, not you seem to think that life is less valuable once it is viable outside the womb
26 Jun 2022 2:37 pm
If child does not want to live they can always kill themselves. For you to make that decision for them feels rather morbid.SJConspirator » 25 Jun 2022, 11:13 pm » wrote: ↑ Maybe you think that poor, unwanted kids are well taken care of in this country, I disagree
https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts
Although I must admit the nazis were willing to do this in the case of children with extreme disabilities...and I can understand it
I would be willing to allow abortion in the case of say...a fetus diagnosed with downs syndrome...because such a child becomes a net burden on the healthy people.
But just because a child will be poor? Nah.
26 Jun 2022 2:44 pm
Abortion should be very limited , only done in the first trimester.FOS » 26 Jun 2022, 2:37 pm » wrote: ↑ If child does not want to live they can always kill themselves. For you to make that decision for them feels rather morbid.
Although I must admit the nazis were willing to do this in the case of children with extreme disabilities...and I can understand it
I would be willing to allow abortion in the case of say...a fetus diagnosed with downs syndrome...because such a child becomes a net burden on the healthy people.
But just because a child will be poor? Nah.
Children should not be killed after they are born. Surprising that I have to clarify that.
26 Jun 2022 2:50 pm
It has not been uncommon in history for inconvenient infants to be killed. And arguably is has been a policy that benefitted the survival of a tribe.SJConspirator » 26 Jun 2022, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑ Abortion should be very limited , only done in the first trimester.
Children should not be killed after they are born. Surprising that I have to clarify that.
even if we grant that your are speaking only about ethics....is it ethical to survive?? I would say yes.
26 Jun 2022 2:56 pm
Then you are not discussing abortion.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
26 Jun 2022 2:58 pm
As is valuing liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For some reason, I link those three together in my mind.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
26 Jun 2022 2:58 pm
It's hard to overstate the stark contrast between the extreme scarcity of times past and the techno abundance of today. The fat of the land has never been fatter. Does that figure into the question of ethical eugenics?FOS » 26 Jun 2022, 2:50 pm » wrote: ↑ It has not been uncommon in history for inconvenient infants to be killed. And arguably is has been a policy that benefitted the survival of a tribe.
even if we grant that your are speaking only about ethics....is it ethical to survive?? I would say yes.
26 Jun 2022 3:01 pm
I would take it farther. Gay babies, gingers, *** babies, the children of fat miscegenators, what have you.FOS » 26 Jun 2022, 2:37 pm » wrote: ↑
I would be willing to allow abortion in the case of say...a fetus diagnosed with downs syndrome...because such a child becomes a net burden on the healthy people.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
26 Jun 2022 3:03 pm
SJConspirator » 26 Jun 2022, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑ It's hard to overstate the stark contrast between the extreme scarcity of times past and the techno abundance of today. The fat of the land has never been fatter. Does that figure into the question of ethical eugenics?
It certainly should,
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
Who is online
In total there are 584 users online :: 7 registered, 13 bots, and 564 guests
Bots: Mediapartners-Google, Applebot, GPTBot, app.hypefactors.com, proximic, YandexBot, ADmantX, semantic-visions.com, linkfluence.com, Not, Googlebot, curl/7, bingbot