 |
|
Whoa, talk about 'a huge logical disconnect'...
Posted on: April 22, 2020 at 19:50:23 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
69113
Member For:
20.82 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
2
kmawv8: You call it "Pro Abortion" to be purposely sensational. I would never and have never advocated for any woman to get an abortion. However, what another woman decides to do with HER body and unborn child should be HER decision. It's not affecting you in any way whatsoever.
Your argument sounds eerily similar to that of Senator Stephen-Douglas in his debates with Abraham Lincoln in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1958.
In those debates Senator Douglas maintained that he was personally against slavery, but that he didn't feel that he had a right to tell slave owners what they could or could not do with their (human) property. It was their choice not his and it was not up to him to interfere.
Abraham Lincoln replied that no man has a right to do what is evil.
Senator Douglas won that election to the Senate in 1958, but I think we can all see that Abe Lincoln was in the right in those debates.
I also think it to be absolutely ludicrous that "attempted suicide" is considered a crime in this country. Or that someone whom is ill cannot decide for themselves to be put to death willingly.
That, of course, is a completely separate issue. I would note that many abuses have krept into the real world practices in countries that have legalized assisted suicide. As human life has been devalued more and more people are reporting that they are being pressured to consent to euthanasia. There are also growing numbers of reports of people being euthanized without their consent. The states and medical systems often have financial incentives to kill people rather than to treat them and abuses grow. I read in one country individuals had set up businesses making ID cards for people with instructions on them that they did NOT consent to being euthanized. This, of course, was because of the growing pressures to have people killed, with or without their consent.
The difference between your point of view and mine, is you're telling others what to do when it doesn't impact you one bit. I'm all for choice.
That is a false premise, of course. More than 60 million babies have been deliberately killed in the US since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. That is 10 times the population of Missouri & 10 times the number of humans killed in the Nazi concentration camps. You can't kill that many people without having profound consequences on a society. The Social Security Ponzi scheme is tottering on the verge of bankruptcy largely because of the demographic distortions of the so called birth dearth over that time frame. Only immigration has prevented a shrinkage in the US population.
But that is a side issue. The reality is that it is immoral in the extreme to look the other way while the core, inherent rights of others are brutally taken from them. Would you favor looking the other way over victims of human trafficking because "it doesn't impact you one bit"? Should we ignore drive by shootings and quit worrying about victims if it happens only in poorer areas because "it doesn't impact you one bit"?
Of course not. But the fact of the matter is that twisting the arms and legs off of tiny babies is even worse than victimizing young women & boys, as horrible as that is. At least they have a chance of escaping from their brutality. Children who have had their brains sucked out do not get even that opportunity.
The US has averaged the deliberate slaughter of more than 3,000 helpless babies EVERY DAY since 1973. That is more than all of the people directly killed in all of the 911 attacks combined. Every day. And you think those who commit those crimes against humanity have every right to do so. You want to help that brutal carnage to continue... forever. But you want to wash your hands of the guilt and say that your personally against it... but it is their right to choose to victimize tens of millions of helpless, innocent human beings.
Your argument sounds eerily similar to that of Senator Stephen-Douglas in his debates with Abraham Lincoln in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1958.
In those debates Senator Douglas maintained that he was personally against slavery, but that he didn't feel that he had a right to tell slave owners what they could or could not do with their (human) property. It was their choice not his and it was not up to him to interfere.
Abraham Lincoln replied that no man has a right to do what is evil.
Senator Douglas won that election to the Senate in 1958, but I think we can all see that Abe Lincoln was in the right in those debates.
I also think it to be absolutely ludicrous that "attempted suicide" is considered a crime in this country. Or that someone whom is ill cannot decide for themselves to be put to death willingly.
That, of course, is a completely separate issue. I would note that many abuses have krept into the real world practices in countries that have legalized assisted suicide. As human life has been devalued more and more people are reporting that they are being pressured to consent to euthanasia. There are also growing numbers of reports of people being euthanized without their consent. The states and medical systems often have financial incentives to kill people rather than to treat them and abuses grow. I read in one country individuals had set up businesses making ID cards for people with instructions on them that they did NOT consent to being euthanized. This, of course, was because of the growing pressures to have people killed, with or without their consent.
The difference between your point of view and mine, is you're telling others what to do when it doesn't impact you one bit. I'm all for choice.
That is a false premise, of course. More than 60 million babies have been deliberately killed in the US since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. That is 10 times the population of Missouri & 10 times the number of humans killed in the Nazi concentration camps. You can't kill that many people without having profound consequences on a society. The Social Security Ponzi scheme is tottering on the verge of bankruptcy largely because of the demographic distortions of the so called birth dearth over that time frame. Only immigration has prevented a shrinkage in the US population.
But that is a side issue. The reality is that it is immoral in the extreme to look the other way while the core, inherent rights of others are brutally taken from them. Would you favor looking the other way over victims of human trafficking because "it doesn't impact you one bit"? Should we ignore drive by shootings and quit worrying about victims if it happens only in poorer areas because "it doesn't impact you one bit"?
Of course not. But the fact of the matter is that twisting the arms and legs off of tiny babies is even worse than victimizing young women & boys, as horrible as that is. At least they have a chance of escaping from their brutality. Children who have had their brains sucked out do not get even that opportunity.
The US has averaged the deliberate slaughter of more than 3,000 helpless babies EVERY DAY since 1973. That is more than all of the people directly killed in all of the 911 attacks combined. Every day. And you think those who commit those crimes against humanity have every right to do so. You want to help that brutal carnage to continue... forever. But you want to wash your hands of the guilt and say that your personally against it... but it is their right to choose to victimize tens of millions of helpless, innocent human beings.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Whoa, talk about 'a huge logical disconnect'... - JeffB MU - 4/22 19:50:23