“If it’s not a human being, then why are you harvesting organs from it?”
-Dr. Ben Carson-
-
32
-
Let it rupp is incel wrote:
bluh.. wrote:
The fact that you think the prospect of a foster child will be unwelcome to me, a random person you know little about, speaks much more about you than anyone else. If anything, you should expect an anti-Roe person to be parenting-friendly.
Anti roe people are more likely to be uneducated, gun-owning, supporting beating kids, dogmatically religious(to the point of letting priests molest their kids) , poor, and have proven they care little for kids post birth.
pro-choice people have better qualities
Exposes your prejudices more than anything else. Not very different from saying black people are more likely to be committing crime.
50 -
Harambe wrote:
bluh.. wrote:
Sounds like your entire argument is based on the presumption that everyone would choose the five year old over the embryos but some of us Roe opposers told you in no uncertain terms that we would choose the embryos, yet you are dancing to the same presumptive rhythm. It seems like your celebratory dance doesn’t depend on the answer to your silly conundrum question.
If this is true you should be at an IVF clinic right now. Countless embryos discarded that is just as bad as headshotting a 5 year old, in your eyes.
so no, you don’t actually care that much about embryos. You feel for my gorilla-strength rhetorical trap and have thusly shown yourself to be:
inconsistent
They only care about embryos hypothetically. In actuality, they aren’t even 1/1000 as important to them as a human being.
11 -
hunter wheres the blow wrote:
Harambe wrote:
If this is true you should be at an IVF clinic right now. Countless embryos discarded that is just as bad as headshotting a 5 year old, in your eyes.
so no, you don’t actually care that much about embryos. You feel for my gorilla-strength rhetorical trap and have thusly shown yourself to be:
inconsistent
They only care about embryos hypothetically. In actuality, they aren’t even 1/1000 as important to them as a human being.
I have already said it’s more than 1/10th.
The Monkey makes bizarre arguments. There are hundreds of thousands of five year olds, younger kids and older adults being killed every day or otherwise dying whose death I could potentially prevent. You are doing nothing either, so presumably by your logic, those breathing lives don’t have much value either. But you would care about an embryo in your woman if you had one. Proved: Inconsistent (is how silly you sound).
20 -
Harambe wrote:
Half true wrote:
Catholics aren’t the only Christian group in the US. Southern Baptist Convention is around 15 million strong and the majority are pro-life. Just admit the “pro-lifers only care about babies in the womb” line is garbage. The pregnancy crisis center in my area helps moms with cribs, diapers, formula, daycare, as well as help finding a job if needed. Most of these services are free or at a highly discounted rate.
4% of the USA. Nobody cares
Your statistic is irrelevant to the discussion. Someone claimed claimed that pro-life people do not care about babies once they’re born. I presented points that debunk that claim. What percentage of the US the southern Baptist convention is to the US population could not be more irrelevant. Feels like an attempt to move the goal posts.
31 -
Half true wrote:
Harambe wrote:
4% of the USA. Nobody cares
Your statistic is irrelevant to the discussion. Someone claimed claimed that pro-life people do not care about babies once they’re born. I presented points that debunk that claim. What percentage of the US the southern Baptist convention is to the US population could not be more irrelevant. Feels like an attempt to move the goal posts.
A very poor attempt indeed.
radical baby killers will make any excuse to attack anyone with a modicum of faith. I feel sorry for them
31 -
bluh.. wrote:
hunter wheres the blow wrote:
They only care about embryos hypothetically. In actuality, they aren’t even 1/1000 as important to them as a human being.
I have already said it’s more than 1/10th.
The Monkey makes bizarre arguments. There are hundreds of thousands of five year olds, younger kids and older adults being killed every day or otherwise dying whose death I could potentially prevent. You are doing nothing either, so presumably by your logic, those breathing lives don’t have much value either. But you would care about an embryo in your woman if you had one. Proved: Inconsistent (is how silly you sound).
Weird presumption of my caring. No I wouldn’t.
I don’t care about your answer. If you aren’t a socio, you’ll save the child instead of 1000 embryos. The only scenario you wouldn’t is the silly doomsday scenario where you need to repopulate the earth lol.
11 -
hunter wheres the blow wrote:
bluh.. wrote:
I have already said it’s more than 1/10th.
The Monkey makes bizarre arguments. There are hundreds of thousands of five year olds, younger kids and older adults being killed every day or otherwise dying whose death I could potentially prevent. You are doing nothing either, so presumably by your logic, those breathing lives don’t have much value either. But you would care about an embryo in your woman if you had one. Proved: Inconsistent (is how silly you sound).
Weird presumption of my caring. No I wouldn’t.
I don’t care about your answer. If you aren’t a socio, you’ll save the child instead of 1000 embryos. The only scenario you wouldn’t is the silly doomsday scenario where you need to repopulate the earth lol.
Of course you don’t care about my actual answer, but attributed an incorrect “1/1000” statement to me, so I corrected it.
Just like you corrected my attribution to you to say that you actually don’t care about your own embryonic child being carried in your wife’s belly relative to a random 5-year old. That’s interesting. But you are at least consistent on that front. (Btw, my second para was aimed at the Monkey, the one that’s (brain-)dead), but I just don’t see its posts directly anymore.)
00 -
hunter wheres the blow wrote:
bluh.. wrote:
I have already said it’s more than 1/10th.
The Monkey makes bizarre arguments. There are hundreds of thousands of five year olds, younger kids and older adults being killed every day or otherwise dying whose death I could potentially prevent. You are doing nothing either, so presumably by your logic, those breathing lives don’t have much value either. But you would care about an embryo in your woman if you had one. Proved: Inconsistent (is how silly you sound).
Weird presumption of my caring. No I wouldn’t.
I don’t care about your answer. If you aren’t a socio, you’ll save the child instead of 1000 embryos. The only scenario you wouldn’t is the silly doomsday scenario where you need to repopulate the earth lol.
bluh would save the embryos, I'm pretty sure it was said multiple times. I presented that hypothetical to show that there are multiple factors to consider in a fire scenario. At the end of the day a human embryo is part of the human species or it is not.
What is a human to you? You mentioned there needs to be brain activity, so would you have the cutoff for abortions be under six weeks?00 -
dababykilla wrote:
hunter wheres the blow wrote:
Weird presumption of my caring. No I wouldn’t.
I don’t care about your answer. If you aren’t a socio, you’ll save the child instead of 1000 embryos. The only scenario you wouldn’t is the silly doomsday scenario where you need to repopulate the earth lol.
bluh would save the embryos, I'm pretty sure it was said multiple times. I presented that hypothetical to show that there are multiple factors to consider in a fire scenario. At the end of the day a human embryo is part of the human species or it is not.
What is a human to you? You mentioned there needs to be brain activity, so would you have the cutoff for abortions be under six weeks?
The first signs of any brain activity are at 6 weeks. It’s not for a few weeks more that the brain activity starts to resemble more consciousness and feeling. I’d be comfortable with 8 weeks. As long as abortions aren’t artificially restricted in other ways during this window, which they currently are but that could change easily enough.
10 -
Half true wrote:
Harambe wrote:
4% of the USA. Nobody cares
Your statistic is irrelevant to the discussion. Someone claimed claimed that pro-life people do not care about babies once they’re born. I presented points that debunk that claim. What percentage of the US the southern Baptist convention is to the US population could not be more irrelevant. Feels like an attempt to move the goal posts.
Agree statistic is irrelevant. My embryonic value perception is not based on religion, Christian or otherwise, just my personal subjective sense of what is human and humane. Am sure there are many like me whose belief in sanctity of life is closer to pro-lifers not because of but despite religion.
00 -
bluh.. wrote:
Half true wrote:
Your statistic is irrelevant to the discussion. Someone claimed claimed that pro-life people do not care about babies once they’re born. I presented points that debunk that claim. What percentage of the US the southern Baptist convention is to the US population could not be more irrelevant. Feels like an attempt to move the goal posts.
Agree statistic is irrelevant. My embryonic value perception is not based on religion, Christian or otherwise, just my personal subjective sense of what is human and humane. Am sure there are many like me whose belief in sanctity of life is closer to pro-lifers not because of but despite religion.
Lol I would call a lot of your beliefs “embryonic” as well. Good call.
I would assert you are in the vast vast minority if you’d let children die to save embryos that have a slim chance of developing anyway.
Of course, you can be a total moron in a LetsRun thread and nothing happens. I suspect you’d be quite different in truly confronted with this choice.
I applaud your commitment and your doubling down on your stupidity. It takes a special kind of person to care so deeply when they get mad online.
00 -
2600 bro wrote:
bluh.. wrote:
Agree statistic is irrelevant. My embryonic value perception is not based on religion, Christian or otherwise, just my personal subjective sense of what is human and humane. Am sure there are many like me whose belief in sanctity of life is closer to pro-lifers not because of but despite religion.
Lol I would call a lot of your beliefs “embryonic” as well. Good call.
I would assert you are in the vast vast minority if you’d let children die to save embryos that have a slim chance of developing anyway.
Of course, you can be a total moron in a LetsRun thread and nothing happens. I suspect you’d be quite different in truly confronted with this choice.
I applaud your commitment and your doubling down on your stupidity. It takes a special kind of person to care so deeply when they get mad online.
Ha, hallmark of losing the argument is to start attacking the speaker.
01 -
bluh.. wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
Lol I would call a lot of your beliefs “embryonic” as well. Good call.
I would assert you are in the vast vast minority if you’d let children die to save embryos that have a slim chance of developing anyway.
Of course, you can be a total moron in a LetsRun thread and nothing happens. I suspect you’d be quite different in truly confronted with this choice.
I applaud your commitment and your doubling down on your stupidity. It takes a special kind of person to care so deeply when they get mad online.
Ha, hallmark of losing the argument is to start attacking the speaker.
Criticizing your decisions and doubting your honesty is not allowed in a discussion now?
Everything has to be a "safe space" where we respect and listen to truly stupid ideas?
Kids these days...
20 -
Ha ha ha ha wrote:
“If it’s not a human being, then why are you harvesting organs from it?”
-Dr. Ben Carson-People with pig heart valves are getting confused.
01 -
bluh.. wrote:
hunter wheres the blow wrote:
They only care about embryos hypothetically. In actuality, they aren’t even 1/1000 as important to them as a human being.
I have already said it’s more than 1/10th.
The Monkey makes bizarre arguments. There are hundreds of thousands of five year olds, younger kids and older adults being killed every day or otherwise dying whose death I could potentially prevent. You are doing nothing either, so presumably by your logic, those breathing lives don’t have much value either. But you would care about an embryo in your woman if you had one. Proved: Inconsistent (is how silly you sound).
I am not the one virtual signaling about the absolute sanctity of 'life.' The burden is on you back up your intellectually and morally consistent positions. You've said you'd save embryos over a 5-year-old so where is your furor over IVF clinics. If you knew a local establishment was murdering dozens of 5 year olds a week.... would you stand idly by? Perhaps, but that wouldn't make you very moral. Under your logic, your indifference is just as evil.
Thankfully, I don't ascribe to the same sanctimonious moralizing BS that you do, so there is no burden of action upon me. Life's good.
00 -
bluh.. wrote:
Half true wrote:
Your statistic is irrelevant to the discussion. Someone claimed claimed that pro-life people do not care about babies once they’re born. I presented points that debunk that claim. What percentage of the US the southern Baptist convention is to the US population could not be more irrelevant. Feels like an attempt to move the goal posts.
Agree statistic is irrelevant. My embryonic value perception is not based on religion, Christian or otherwise, just my personal subjective sense of what is human and humane. Am sure there are many like me whose belief in sanctity of life is closer to pro-lifers not because of but despite religion.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
11 -
Harambe wrote:
bluh.. wrote:
Sounds like your entire argument is based on the presumption that everyone would choose the five year old over the embryos but some of us Roe opposers told you in no uncertain terms that we would choose the embryos, yet you are dancing to the same presumptive rhythm. It seems like your celebratory dance doesn’t depend on the answer to your silly conundrum question.
If this is true you should be at an IVF clinic right now. Countless embryos discarded that is just as bad as headshotting a 5 year old, in your eyes.
so no, you don’t actually care that much about embryos. You feel for my gorilla-strength rhetorical trap and have thusly shown yourself to be:
inconsistent
Why are pro-lifers NEVER at IVF clinics? There's literally a dozen embryos destroyed for every woman there.
11 -
Tatar... wrote:
Harambe wrote:
If this is true you should be at an IVF clinic right now. Countless embryos discarded that is just as bad as headshotting a 5 year old, in your eyes.
so no, you don’t actually care that much about embryos. You feel for my gorilla-strength rhetorical trap and have thusly shown yourself to be:
inconsistent
Why are pro-lifers NEVER at IVF clinics? There's literally a dozen embryos destroyed for every woman there.
Because they don't actually believe that an embryo deserves anything close to the same rights as a birthed human. They just say they do for political reasons and virtue signaling.
00 -
I'm pro-choice, but unlike many pro-choice people, I do understand and give significant weight to pro-life arguments regarding sanctity of life.
However, I really don't understand this South Dakota position, where they will not prosecute the pregnant woman who aborts a pregnancy. This seems to turn the pro-life arguments I'm reading here into just hypocritical politics, rather than a moral belief in the sanctity of life.
If abortion is murder, why wouldn't the primary actor in the murder be prosecuted? The murder does not happen unless the pregnant woman initially contacts the doctor to commit the murder. It's like the murder for hire conspiracies we read about all the time. The pregnant woman wants someone killed, and conspires with someone more experienced to commit the murder. I really can't figure out the rationale for not prosecuting the pregnant woman responsible for murder, but rather ONLY prosecuting the doctor. Anyone?
Is it a belief that pregnant women are only having abortions because they are being coerced or unduly influenced to commit the murder, and therefore have no criminal intent? That seems an incredibly flimsy theory. A million pregnant women a year were incapable of making that decision, and only did so because these criminal doctors they contacted took advantage of their emotional condition and talked them into it? Just seems so far-fetched to me.
This irreconcilable South Dakota policy on abortion has me re-thinking whether most pro-lifers really believe abortion is the murder of an innocent baby.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.