Zone1 Kristan Hawkins Crushes Arguments Of Pro-Choicer

[alang1216]

I think you’re missing the point, attempting to drown out this discussion with what ifs about mundane things. The point is, the need for a defined standard for the function of a society on important matters.

And remember, this isn’t just 1 mph of speed limits we’re talking about, it’s whether a “zygote” or “fetus” has a right to their entire life or Not.

It’s astounding to see educated individuals walking around without a desire to identify when something is alive, and more importantly why that’s the standard. It’s negligent IMO. Give a standard, and stand by it with reasoning, and then apply all to that standard.. which usually ends up for pro-abortion folk as quite immoral behavior.

Roe defined a standard that many could live with. What you are demanding is that you set the standard for everyone else.

 

[alang1216]

The chromosomes individually do not have human rights, the human being they reside within does.

And there is no issue of superseding rights, whatsoever. The young offspring human being has the human right to life - the only thing relevant that the mother and father have are parental obligations to provide for the food and shelter of their son or daughter.

You think parents own their kids as property or have the “right” to kill them at will. That is FITH.

So if the chromosomes from a zygote are removed, you're OK with that?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

So if the chromosomes from a zygote are removed, you're OK with that?

I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

We have that in common.

If I take your nonsense literally, no, I’m not okay with attacking a human being and removing their genetic material, ensuring their death, as that is a homicide.

 

[alang1216]

Not supersede..they merely should both be upheld equally.

Not always an option. If you invite me over for dinner and then I refuse to leave, is my right to stay in your house the equal of your right to have me leave? What if I'm homeless and claim I'll die if you turn me out?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Not always an option. If you invite me over for dinner and then I refuse to leave, is my right to stay in your house the equal of your right to have me leave? What if I'm homeless and claim I'll die if you turn me out?

Stupid.

Does not address the reality of reproduction, where the “guest” is literally created by the “homeowner” and put resting helplessly in exactly the state and location the homeowner put them in. And the guest is your own kid, not a guest at all. You can’t just yell at your four year old to leave the house and then get out the buckshot shells.

 

[alang1216]

I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

We have that in common.

If I take your nonsense literally, no, I’m not okay with attacking a human being and removing their genetic material, ensuring their death, as that is a homicide.

So their chromosomes individually do have human rights? What if the zygote's chromosomes are removed and implanted in another cell. Are there now two human beings or only one?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Roe defined a standard that many could live with. What you are demanding is that you set the standard for everyone else.

Sure, but the reason why wasn’t very compelling, and it certainly was a fringe viewpoint at the time… that’s why Roe is the poster child for judicial SCOTUS political activism.

However, why are you accusing me of “setting a standard” as some sort of bad thing while you cite a standard yourself… is it bad for you to “set a standard for everyone else”? Or are you allowed to set standards and if anyone else attempts to act against them they’re some authoritarian tyrant? Wouldn’t you be the tyrant for setting the standard in the first place? The logic doesn’t add up

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

So their chromosomes individually do have human rights? What if the zygote's chromosomes are removed and implanted in another cell. Are there now two human beings or only one?

None of what you are saying makes any sense on any level.

Don’t attack human beings. Kthx.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Not always an option. If you invite me over for dinner and then I refuse to leave, is my right to stay in your house the equal of your right to have me leave?

What I wouldn’t be able to do is poison you and throw your dead carcus out the door, that would be extremely immoral, don’t you agree?

 

[alang1216]

Sure, but the reason why wasn’t very compelling, and it certainly was a fringe viewpoint at the time… that’s why Roe is the poster child for judicial SCOTUS political activism.

However, why are you accusing me of “setting a standard” as some sort of bad thing while you cite a standard yourself… is it bad for you to “set a standard for everyone else”? Or are you allowed to set standards and if anyone else attempts to act against them they’re some authoritarian tyrant? Wouldn’t you be the tyrant for setting the standard in the first place? The logic doesn’t add up

If different people can set different standards, seems to me those standards are arbitrary. You may be content to focus on a single aspect of the issue, a purely biological definition, but SCOTUS in Roe focused on the totality of the issue, exactly like the majority of Americans.

 

[alang1216]

What I wouldn’t be able to do is poison you and throw your dead carcus out the door, that would be extremely immoral, don’t you agree?

I'm sure there are many things you wouldn't do, but what would you do?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If different people can set different standards, seems to me those standards are arbitrary. You may be content to focus on a single aspect of the issue, a purely biological definition, but SCOTUS in Roe focused on the totality of the issue, exactly like the majority of Americans.

At the time it was passed it was the significant minority. It had to be enforced and glorified for multiple generations via Democrat propaganda to achieve it’s odd stance to left wing activists today, who speak of it as if it’s in the constitution for hundreds of years next to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The people who proudly attempt to reason how human entities don’t deserve human rights protections don’t go down well in the history books.

 

[alang1216]

At the time it was passed it was the significant minority. It had to be enforced and glorified for multiple generations via Democrat propaganda to achieve it’s odd stance to left wing activists today, who speak of it as if it’s in the constitution for hundreds of years next to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If Democratic 'propaganda' is so bad way can't the Right win the public over?

The people who proudly attempt to reason how human entities don’t deserve human rights protections don’t go down well in the history books.

The women who want the right to control their own bodies would agree.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The women who want the right to control their own bodies would agree.

Well nobody is trying to end the lives of pregnant women, so, that makes not sense and we’ll move on past it since it doesn’t apply.

This whole issue is putting the convenience and strain on a woman’s life vs. The actual life of a human. No matter what you try to spin, you’re arguing for a woman’s convenience over a humans life. It’s a dangerous logic, we’ve seen groups of people be deemed “inconvenient” before to tyrants which results in genocide. You’re wanting to go back down that road.. yikes. You’ll try to sprint to victimhood and painting your opposition as evil immediately, I get it (You don’t care AT ALL about women!!) .. I fully expect the usual straw man arguments to flow to avoid the stated fact.

Convenience vs. Life. You choose the first, I choose the second. I think most would agree I have the moral high ground, once you strip away the politics, social egos, etc, and get to the logical root of the issue. Roe v Wade was around for a cup of coffee and now has been corrected, much like prohibition. Future generations may look back at this practice of abortion for convenience and be shocked at its barbaric nature, much like we do today with torture, slavery, and other grave evils.

 

[alang1216]

Well nobody is trying to end the lives of pregnant women, so, that makes not sense and we’ll move on past it since it doesn’t apply.

So the mother essentially has no rights. Got it.

This whole issue is putting the convenience and strain on a woman’s life vs. The actual life of a human. No matter what you try to spin, you’re arguing for a woman’s convenience over a humans life. It’s a dangerous logic, we’ve seen groups of people be deemed “inconvenient” before to tyrants which results in genocide. You’re wanting to go back down that road.. yikes. You’ll try to sprint to victimhood and painting your opposition as evil immediately, I get it (You don’t care AT ALL about women!!) .. I fully expect the usual straw man arguments to flow to avoid the stated fact.

Convenience vs. Life. You choose the first, I choose the second. I think most would agree I have the moral high ground, once you strip away the politics, social egos, etc, and get to the logical root of the issue. Roe v Wade was around for a cup of coffee and now has been corrected, much like prohibition. Future generations may look back at this practice of abortion for convenience and be shocked at its barbaric nature, much like we do today with torture, slavery, and other grave evils.

Not quite, you choose to define when a human life begins and that is fine for you but not for the rest of us. I don't see you as evil, only as a group trying to force their morality on all others.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

So the mother essentially has no rights. Got it.

There’s the exaggerated straw man I know I can count on from a leftist.

Pregnant women have the right to their life. That’s a fact. You can’t just kill pregnant women, so your straw man is entirely irrational, and we can move on.

Not quite, you choose to define when a human life begins and that is fine for you but not for the rest of us. I don't see you as evil, only as a group trying to force their morality on all others.

So what if a persons morality decides you’re right to life isn’t to be applied.. can they kill you? You’re the one who just suggested human life is a subjective standard. It’s a dangerous road to go down

 

[dblack]

One thing statists can never comprehend is that government isn't the answer to all problems.

 

[alang1216]

There’s the exaggerated straw man I know I can count on from a leftist.

You're right, I stand corrected. The mother has one right, the right to life, while her fetus has two:

• the right to life
• the right to a healthy diet (no alcohol, no drugs, nothing that will do it harm)

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You're right, I stand corrected. The mother has one right, the right to life, while her fetus has two:

• the right to life
• the right to a healthy diet (no alcohol, no drugs, nothing that will do it harm)

Huh?

Even though it’s absolutely a bad thing by any measure to drink while pregnant, it’s oddly not federally illegal.

And there are no laws on what pregnant people must eat as far as a healthy diet.

So, your claim isn’t correct.. another straw man or just ignorance of what youre talking about

 

[alang1216]

Huh?

Even though it’s absolutely a bad thing by any measure to drink while pregnant, it’s oddly not federally illegal.

Forty-three US states have regulations around the practice.

And there are no laws on what pregnant people must eat as far as a healthy diet.

So, your claim isn’t correct.. another straw man or just ignorance of what youre talking about

24 states and the District of Columbia consider substance use during pregnancy to be child abuse under civil child-welfare statutes, and 3 consider it grounds for civil commitment.
25 states and the District of Columbia require health care professionals to report suspected prenatal drug use, and 8 states require them to test for prenatal drug exposure if they suspect drug use.