A_Muse_Mint101 Offline

41 Single Male from Lake Jackson       265
         
A_Muse_Mint101
A_Muse_Mint101: If anyone was curious if people and government can give and take away rights, today you should have no argument to the contrary.
1 year ago ReplyReport Link Collapse Show Comments (8)
2
Stiritup
Stiritup: Because rights are inherent and not bound by human law?
1 year ago ReplyReport
0
A_Muse_Mint101
A_Muse_Mint101 in reply to Stiritup: On the contrary, they are bound, created, and denied by human law.
1 year ago ReplyReport
1
Stiritup
Stiritup: I'm pro-choice and I believe abortion is murder.
Without alteration, life begins at conception. It's not just clipping fingernails.
I also understand that most women probably don't use abortion as birth control; there are a lot of medical reasons to need one.
That person would have had a name, though.

As for a legal precedent, what did you expect when the last guy appointed 3 SC judges during his insane flailing of power during his tempestuous lie of a career?

Sanity lost.
1 year ago ReplyReport
0
Zlad
Zlad in reply to Stiritup: As someone who chose to murder someone last night, I'm glad to know there are people out there who support my right to murder.
1 year ago ReplyReport
1
Zlad
Zlad in reply to Stiritup: Seriously though, when calling something murder it's important to go back to the basics of WHY murder is a bad thing. For the definition to be of any use, murder should always be bad. So what would be so bad about me shooting a stranger in the street? Why is it bad for me to take their life? Well, for one, given the choice, they probably want to stay alive so I'd be acting against one of their (likely) fundamental wishes. They value their lives and thus have something to lose. A fetus does not have an understanding of what it means to be alive or dead. It does not value its life. The fact that it may value its life in the future is irrelevant. If we take its life now, it loses absolutely nothing. If we were to call this murder, then that would be simply be applying the label in an unhelpful way. It would be calling something that harms no-one murder. Suddenly there'd be instances of *murder* that were no longer bad. This would take away from the meaning and utility of the word. It makes no sense to call abortion murder.
1 year ago ReplyReport
1
Stiritup
Stiritup in reply to Zlad: But murder is a physical act, not a moral statement. If you shoot someone in the street, it's murder even if they have a death wish; whether they value their life or not. From a biological standpoint, the growing child in a womb is natural, and would usually grow into a pleasant little old person who tells you stories about 75 years ago. The little vacuum wand and brain scrambler is invasive. Only meant to kill.
1 year ago ReplyReport
0
Adite
Adite: You have a common misconception. HIV is natural, brain cancer is natural. Natural does not mean good or desirable.

If you want to found your logic in biology, perhaps you should use the correct biological term for an unborn offspring - fetus.
1 year ago ReplyReport
0
Stiritup
Stiritup in reply to Adite: Yeah, I'm not a specialist in any field. I'd call HIV and brain cancer invasive, too, even though they're natural.

I'm also uneducated about reproductive terminology. In my mind, a fetus(or most) becomes a baby unless acted upon by an outside force. I guess I group the terms together.

I, don't want to found my logic in biology. I want to found it in time travel. I'm just not there yet.
1 year ago ReplyReport
0