US signs anti-abortion declaration with group of largely authoritarian governments

[Unkotare]

“ Megawatts Brain-Dead Avocado Hysterics Socratic Romance Loving Infanticide ”

* Eye Which Do Not See Chrome-Plated Chinese Fortune Cookies *

" Comedic Buffoonery Hypocrite Goal "

* Libertarians In Authoritarian Clown Outfits *

Why would a libertarian want to kill a helpless child? Let the authoritarians do the killing.

A Libertarian Case Against Abortion - Being Libertarian

I have only been a libertarian for a little over two years, and I have noticed that one of the most contentious issues within libertarianism is abortion. Pro-life versus pro-choice. I won’t dive into the validity of those terms based on their semantical implications, but I do want to make clear...

beinglibertarian.com

The authoritarian would direct killings through government , and libertarians promoting their nap and opposed to elective abortion by individuals can go back to sleep because there is not a legal victim by proxy without a physical capacity for sentience in the fetus because conscientious objection does not exist to justify it .

Brain dead persons which have been born have their wright [sic] to life removed by due process , whereas a fetus has not ever received such a wright [sic] .

What language are you speaking?

He's trying real hard to speak Pretentious Douchebagese, and failing even at that.

 

[Unkotare]

" Fresh Off The Boat One In Every Crowd "

* Already Covered This Ground In This Thread *

Once an embryo or fetus has DNA unique from that of the mother, it is an individual and should be protected under the Constitution.

That may be your hope and dream but this is not a theocracy and that is not what the constitution directs .

There was nothing theocratic in what he said.

 

[playtime]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

because she is no longer an incubating host when it can survive on its own, but until then, if she is forced to remain pregnant - then that is all she is worth in the eyes of the pro birthers.

But, she IS an "host" even after the child can survive on it's own. They don't remove the child early and put it in a incubator, they "force" the woman to carry the child to term.


My point is, that your arguments are of Absolute Principles.


YOu say, "A woman's body.... autonomy", that is an absolute, with no legitimacy to any other voice.


Then you change up, and say, well, not all the way to birth.


Once you admit that society has a valid interest in the unborn child, and/or protecting it, the debate becomes one of balancing cost/benefits and judgement calls.


Once you do that, you admit that your earlier point of "autonomy" was wrong.


You don't get to play Circular Debating games.


Well, you can, but I will call you on them.


View attachment 407339

only in yer mind, cartoon boy. i expand as a conversation goes along.... why?

it's the natural order. you're grasping.

answer me this:

should a woman be FORCED to carry & give birth against her will or be held criminally liable for seeking an abortion. you know - like going to prison?

that is a simple yes or no.

Sorry, we are past that. YOu admitted to the legitimacy of restrictions on late term abortions.


In doing so, you agreed that the State has a valid interest greater than the woman's "autonomy".


Backtracking now, is you doing what I said you would do, ie, playing the circular debating game.


View attachment 407369

nope. nice try ... doesn't fly.

we are not past the most basic fundamental aspect of this thread.

btw - late term abortion have been severely restricted for a very long time, so the point is pretty moot when it comes to that.

do you think the state has a say in a woman's autonomy when the embryo or fetus cannot survive on its own & is so underdeveloped as to need a womb to gestate? we are never beyond that because mitigating circumstances rule.

yes or no.

Now that you admit that the state has a say in a "woman's autonomy" the question becomes a political discussion of balancing the rights and interests of the unborn child against the rights and interests of the mother.


Which is the way it should be, not people like you pretending that people who oppose you are Evul.


Which is what you are trying to avoid. Because you don't care so much about any issue, other than using it to smear and marginalize your enemies, to advance your far left agenda.

stop being stuck on stupid, cartoon boy. you get these little stories in yer head & then somehow start to believe yer own crap. i am hardly 'far left'

what's next? accusing me of being antifa again?

 

[j-mac]

" Barrage Of Ad Hominem Because The Constitutional Opposition To Abortion Is Mute "

* Bottom Of The Barrel *

Projection at its most disgusting.
It's racist like you who preach the abolishment of morals, while cynically destroying the black family unit, thus ensuring dependence...it's you keeping the black community on that plantation for a vote.

Was it you calling broadcast networks and vendors to admonish them that they did not ever represent black families in commercials , and to reign in their show tunes homosexual producers who did not understand the meaning of an after life who were always depicting the anti-racist racism of black male misogyny through self ignorant white woman , while also conveying to black women " black men do no want you " ?

It is bad enough having to watch anyone eat , but what is the bent with depicting blacks stuffing food in their faces ; is it supposed to convince them that they cannot protest about going hungry ?

What does your idiotic comments have to do with promoting the psychosis of fictional ishmaelism institutions by the us government that is the topic of this thread ?

Trying to move the goalposts won’t save you wrong argument...murder is still murder.

 

[Correll]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

because she is no longer an incubating host when it can survive on its own, but until then, if she is forced to remain pregnant - then that is all she is worth in the eyes of the pro birthers.

But, she IS an "host" even after the child can survive on it's own. They don't remove the child early and put it in a incubator, they "force" the woman to carry the child to term.


My point is, that your arguments are of Absolute Principles.


YOu say, "A woman's body.... autonomy", that is an absolute, with no legitimacy to any other voice.


Then you change up, and say, well, not all the way to birth.


Once you admit that society has a valid interest in the unborn child, and/or protecting it, the debate becomes one of balancing cost/benefits and judgement calls.


Once you do that, you admit that your earlier point of "autonomy" was wrong.


You don't get to play Circular Debating games.


Well, you can, but I will call you on them.


View attachment 407339

only in yer mind, cartoon boy. i expand as a conversation goes along.... why?

it's the natural order. you're grasping.

answer me this:

should a woman be FORCED to carry & give birth against her will or be held criminally liable for seeking an abortion. you know - like going to prison?

that is a simple yes or no.

Sorry, we are past that. YOu admitted to the legitimacy of restrictions on late term abortions.


In doing so, you agreed that the State has a valid interest greater than the woman's "autonomy".


Backtracking now, is you doing what I said you would do, ie, playing the circular debating game.


View attachment 407369

nope. nice try ... doesn't fly.

we are not past the most basic fundamental aspect of this thread.

btw - late term abortion have been severely restricted for a very long time, so the point is pretty moot when it comes to that.

do you think the state has a say in a woman's autonomy when the embryo or fetus cannot survive on its own & is so underdeveloped as to need a womb to gestate? we are never beyond that because mitigating circumstances rule.

yes or no.

Now that you admit that the state has a say in a "woman's autonomy" the question becomes a political discussion of balancing the rights and interests of the unborn child against the rights and interests of the mother.


Which is the way it should be, not people like you pretending that people who oppose you are Evul.


Which is what you are trying to avoid. Because you don't care so much about any issue, other than using it to smear and marginalize your enemies, to advance your far left agenda.

stop being stuck on stupid, cartoon boy. you get these little stories in yer head & then somehow start to believe yer own crap. i am hardly 'far left'

what's next? accusing me of being antifa again?

The point stands. YOu have accepted that other people CAN tell the woman "what to do with her own body" in the interests of the unborn child.


The question now is, where to draw the line.


I am wiling to have that debate, but not if the moment you get pressed, you will play that stupid Circular Debating game and suddenly start talking about "autonomy" again, which has already been refuted.

 

[playtime]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

because she is no longer an incubating host when it can survive on its own, but until then, if she is forced to remain pregnant - then that is all she is worth in the eyes of the pro birthers.

But, she IS an "host" even after the child can survive on it's own. They don't remove the child early and put it in a incubator, they "force" the woman to carry the child to term.


My point is, that your arguments are of Absolute Principles.


YOu say, "A woman's body.... autonomy", that is an absolute, with no legitimacy to any other voice.


Then you change up, and say, well, not all the way to birth.


Once you admit that society has a valid interest in the unborn child, and/or protecting it, the debate becomes one of balancing cost/benefits and judgement calls.


Once you do that, you admit that your earlier point of "autonomy" was wrong.


You don't get to play Circular Debating games.


Well, you can, but I will call you on them.


View attachment 407339

only in yer mind, cartoon boy. i expand as a conversation goes along.... why?

it's the natural order. you're grasping.

answer me this:

should a woman be FORCED to carry & give birth against her will or be held criminally liable for seeking an abortion. you know - like going to prison?

that is a simple yes or no.

Sorry, we are past that. YOu admitted to the legitimacy of restrictions on late term abortions.


In doing so, you agreed that the State has a valid interest greater than the woman's "autonomy".


Backtracking now, is you doing what I said you would do, ie, playing the circular debating game.


View attachment 407369

nope. nice try ... doesn't fly.

we are not past the most basic fundamental aspect of this thread.

btw - late term abortion have been severely restricted for a very long time, so the point is pretty moot when it comes to that.

do you think the state has a say in a woman's autonomy when the embryo or fetus cannot survive on its own & is so underdeveloped as to need a womb to gestate? we are never beyond that because mitigating circumstances rule.

yes or no.

Now that you admit that the state has a say in a "woman's autonomy" the question becomes a political discussion of balancing the rights and interests of the unborn child against the rights and interests of the mother.


Which is the way it should be, not people like you pretending that people who oppose you are Evul.


Which is what you are trying to avoid. Because you don't care so much about any issue, other than using it to smear and marginalize your enemies, to advance your far left agenda.

stop being stuck on stupid, cartoon boy. you get these little stories in yer head & then somehow start to believe yer own crap. i am hardly 'far left'

what's next? accusing me of being antifa again?

The point stands. YOu have accepted that other people CAN tell the woman "what to do with her own body" in the interests of the unborn child.


The question now is, where to draw the line.


I am wiling to have that debate, but not if the moment you get pressed, you will play that stupid Circular Debating game and suddenly start talking about "autonomy" again, which has already been refuted.


View attachment 407779

this isn't new cartoon boy - i have been consistent both here & the multiple other threads about the same fucking thing. you think this is circular? well no shit - but the final decision should always remain with the female. there are so few that actually would willingly go thru 8 or 9 months & just b4 birth - stop & say uh, never mind. 'kill it'. & pay the full cost of what that entails & the physical toll vs first trimester/early 2nd termination?

it just doesn't happen. you are looking at a bigger picture that really isn't taking place & you're stuck. but you know what very well could happen?




it will always start there.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Anthropocentric Tissy Fit "

* Little Girls Crying About Their Dolls *

Trying to move the goalposts won’t save you wrong argument...murder is still murder.

The only ones moving the goal posts are the witless trolls who cannot accept the constitution and the institution of state , along with the limits of its interests and obligations .

Murder is a legal construct and your comment is as baseless as the over dramatization that babies are being killed during abortion .

Legal positivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Unkotare]

...

Murder is a legal construct ...
...

So if the law changes, what you believe to constitute murder will suddenly change? Is that what you're saying? Are you that much of an empty shell? If you lived 200 years ago you would have been a staunch advocate of slavery? Do you have any moral grounding at all, or are you a democrat?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" You Want It You Take It "

* Twists On Who Owns What *

The point stands. YOu have accepted that other people CAN tell the woman "what to do with her own body" in the interests of the unborn child.
The question now is, where to draw the line.
I am wiling to have that debate, but not if the moment you get pressed, you will play that stupid Circular Debating game and suddenly start talking about "autonomy" again, which has already been refuted.

The line is based upon a birth standard for equal protection to received protected wrights .

A rigid standard of parturition defines that a fetus does not have constitutional protections , whereas a less rigid standard of viability allows states to proscribe abortion as a vice within limits , and both are based upon birth .

Consider anencephaly in the context of a conjecture by the woman that she has autonomy over her own body .

Suppose the state prohibits such abortions in the third trimester and upon diagnosis the woman demands the fetus be delivered alive by c section and handed to the state to have and to hold .

Us 5th amendment includes the clause " nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " , and since the womb of the mother is private property , would the state be obligated to compensate the woman for its public use as an incubator ?

Anencephaly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Unkotare]

Now the dilettante is pretending to understand the law. He should work on improving his English first.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Pearls And Swine "

* Rigors Of Legalism *

So if the law changes, what you believe to constitute murder will suddenly change? Is that what you're saying? Are you that much of an empty shell? If you lived 200 years ago you would have been a staunch advocate of slavery? Do you have any moral grounding at all, or are you a democrat?

A law is a legal construct and there is not necessarily a correlation between the law and morality , which is the basis of legal positivism .

There is not a legal construct of current law whereby abortion is murder , and even if abortion were murder by legal statute , there would not be a correlation between such a law and morality .

* My Principles *

By definition , violence is illegitimate aggression , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

Illegitimate aggression against self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents - contracts ) that are basic elements of individualism constitutes violence .

To answer the question about slavery and even caste systems , one cannot surrender self ownership to satisfy an obligation of debt incurred legally by exercising self determination , thus slavery is illegitimate and one is free to acquire payment of debts elsewhere .


* Reality Of Nature *

Prior to establishment of a state according to a constitution , individuals are subject to natural freedoms that are founded in moral relativism .

To improve ones quality of life and chances for survival , individuals exchange natural freedoms for protected wrights according to the social civil contract of a constitution .

 

[Unkotare]

...A law is a legal construct and there is not necessarily a correlation between the law and morality...

Proving yet again that you don't understand either one.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Mocking Of TauntsFrom Hollow Shadows By Those Feigning Altruism "

* Semester Elective On Nietzsche *

Proving yet again that you don't understand either one.

Perspectivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formations or subjective designations.[6] Therefore, there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes.[7] Rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) are constantly reassessed according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[8] Truth is thus created by integrating different vantage points together.

* Continuing To Feed Information To Those Raving About The Moral High Ground *

Consequentialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome.

Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology, in which rules and moral duty are central, derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It is also contrasted with virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic ethics which treats morality like science: advancing socially over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision.

 

[Unkotare]

Now Cliff Clavin pretends to understand Philosophy.

 

[Correll]

abortion should stay legal up to the point of viability.

That seems to contradict your talk of a "woman's body" and "autonomy".

IF telling the woman what to do with "her body" is a violation of her "autonomy" why does that change when the "fetus" becomes viable?

because she is no longer an incubating host when it can survive on its own, but until then, if she is forced to remain pregnant - then that is all she is worth in the eyes of the pro birthers.

But, she IS an "host" even after the child can survive on it's own. They don't remove the child early and put it in a incubator, they "force" the woman to carry the child to term.


My point is, that your arguments are of Absolute Principles.


YOu say, "A woman's body.... autonomy", that is an absolute, with no legitimacy to any other voice.


Then you change up, and say, well, not all the way to birth.


Once you admit that society has a valid interest in the unborn child, and/or protecting it, the debate becomes one of balancing cost/benefits and judgement calls.


Once you do that, you admit that your earlier point of "autonomy" was wrong.


You don't get to play Circular Debating games.


Well, you can, but I will call you on them.


View attachment 407339

only in yer mind, cartoon boy. i expand as a conversation goes along.... why?

it's the natural order. you're grasping.

answer me this:

should a woman be FORCED to carry & give birth against her will or be held criminally liable for seeking an abortion. you know - like going to prison?

that is a simple yes or no.

Sorry, we are past that. YOu admitted to the legitimacy of restrictions on late term abortions.


In doing so, you agreed that the State has a valid interest greater than the woman's "autonomy".


Backtracking now, is you doing what I said you would do, ie, playing the circular debating game.


View attachment 407369

nope. nice try ... doesn't fly.

we are not past the most basic fundamental aspect of this thread.

btw - late term abortion have been severely restricted for a very long time, so the point is pretty moot when it comes to that.

do you think the state has a say in a woman's autonomy when the embryo or fetus cannot survive on its own & is so underdeveloped as to need a womb to gestate? we are never beyond that because mitigating circumstances rule.

yes or no.

Now that you admit that the state has a say in a "woman's autonomy" the question becomes a political discussion of balancing the rights and interests of the unborn child against the rights and interests of the mother.


Which is the way it should be, not people like you pretending that people who oppose you are Evul.


Which is what you are trying to avoid. Because you don't care so much about any issue, other than using it to smear and marginalize your enemies, to advance your far left agenda.

stop being stuck on stupid, cartoon boy. you get these little stories in yer head & then somehow start to believe yer own crap. i am hardly 'far left'

what's next? accusing me of being antifa again?

The point stands. YOu have accepted that other people CAN tell the woman "what to do with her own body" in the interests of the unborn child.


The question now is, where to draw the line.


I am wiling to have that debate, but not if the moment you get pressed, you will play that stupid Circular Debating game and suddenly start talking about "autonomy" again, which has already been refuted.


View attachment 407779

this isn't new cartoon boy - i have been consistent both here & the multiple other threads about the same fucking thing. you think this is circular? well no shit - but the final decision should always remain with the female. there are so few that actually would willingly go thru 8 or 9 months & just b4 birth - stop & say uh, never mind. 'kill it'. & pay the full cost of what that entails & the physical toll vs first trimester/early 2nd termination?

it just doesn't happen. you are looking at a bigger picture that really isn't taking place & you're stuck. but you know what very well could happen?




it will always start there.

Earlier you disagreed with the statement that you supported abortion right up to the moment of birth.


That was you giving up on your claim that "the final decision should always remain with the female".


Now, just like I said you would, you now have come back around, in a "circle" to now make the same argument that you already conceded on.


YOu are nothing but a dishonest troll partisan asshole.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Do Not Put It Past Someone To Push The Envelope "

* What Of My Body So Get Your Property And Go *

Earlier you disagreed with the statement that you supported abortion right up to the moment of birth.
That was you giving up on your claim that "the final decision should always remain with the female".
Now, just like I said you would, you now have come back around, in a "circle" to now make the same argument that you already conceded on.
YOu are nothing but a dishonest troll partisan asshole.

Your argument hinges upon a condition by a state law where a woman can not elect for abortion post viability .

What are you thoughts about post viability and whether the woman can demand the fetus be delivered alive by c section and turned over to cps ?

The inquiry reminds us of property tax assessments that are often outrageous and disproportionate with the actual value that is possible for sale , such that tax assessor office should be required to purchase the property outright based upon its estimates if demanded so by the owner .

 

[mamooth]

Nonsense, that is what you tell yourself so that you don't have to face the horror of killing an innocent baby.

Pro-lifers, just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves.

Specks aren't people. My cat has a brain the size of a walnut, and even she knows specks aren't people. Pro-lifer brains are presumably larger, so they know it as well. They just choose to lie about it.

What they need to ask themselves is what drives their willingness to lie about something so obvious. What particular moral defect makes pro-lifers such proud liars?

 

[j-mac]

" Anthropocentric Tissy Fit "

* Little Girls Crying About Their Dolls *

Trying to move the goalposts won’t save you wrong argument...murder is still murder.

The only ones moving the goal posts are the witless trolls who cannot accept the constitution and the institution of state , along with the limits of its interests and obligations .

Murder is a legal construct and your comment is as baseless as the over dramatization that babies are being killed during abortion .

Legal positivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They‘re not? Allowed to continue in the womb, what will they be? A toaster?

 

[Correll]

" Do Not Put It Past Someone To Push The Envelope "

* What Of My Body So Get Your Property And Go *

Earlier you disagreed with the statement that you supported abortion right up to the moment of birth.
That was you giving up on your claim that "the final decision should always remain with the female".
Now, just like I said you would, you now have come back around, in a "circle" to now make the same argument that you already conceded on.
YOu are nothing but a dishonest troll partisan asshole.

Your argument hinges upon a condition by a state law where a woman can not elect for abortion post viability .

What are you thoughts about post viability and whether the woman can demand the fetus be delivered alive by c section and turned over to cps ?

The inquiry reminds us of property tax assessments that are often outrageous and disproportionate with the actual value that is possible for sale , such that tax assessor office should be required to purchase the property outright based upon its estimates if demanded so by the owner .

If the day comes when such a procedure is equal outcomes to the natural process, that would be a viable policy.


Right now though, my point is that the PRINCIPLE of restricting abortions is accepted even by playtime. The question is one of judgement, and balancing benefit/cost and conflicting needs and interests.

It is a valid political debate, not a matter of "rights" vs government oppression, as playtime and her ilk like to pretend.

 

[BlackSand]

Now Cliff Clavin pretends to understand Philosophy.

Debating philosophy with a poster quoting Wikipedia is inconsequential at best.

.