The dearth of self-awareness

#11
(Feb 1, 2019 11:59 PM)confused2 Wrote:
Syne Wrote:What's wrong, C2? No comeback?
I was impressed by your response - don't ask me to repeat it too often. It doesn't help to mix up the message with the messenger - which was my point. I doubt if you have a history of violence and it would be irrelevant  to the discussion even if you did.
When I first visited France (say 1970)  I was surprised at the amount of public drunkeness - not rowdy (like the English) just pissed as rats. In the years between then and about 1985 the French made public intoxication illegal and in 1985 I saw (almost) no evidence of public intoxication. Likewise in the UK we have banned smoking virtually everywhere and the number of smokers has decreased substantially. The changes in both cases are changes in the culture as much as changes in the law. In the UK the law (obviously) doesn't  stop people having unlicenced guns but people with them don't sleep quite as easily as those without. Even unenforcable laws cause cultural change. Leroy might say "You ain't never taking my AK47 away from me." but his son might (or might not) be keen to inherit it if AK47's became less than legal.

Not sure where you think the message and messenger were conflated. If someone is making extreme arguments against guns without any facts, their hypocritical views on how to protect "babies" is somewhat pertinent. Solely emotional arguments do not warrant much else.

The UK also never had a constitutionally guaranteed rights to self-defense...nor France for public drunkenness. So these were not all that culturally ingrained. You could just as readily get drunk indoors and the UK started banning guns in 1584 and disarmed people before 1689. That's a culture of being told how you can defend yourself. Only Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US ever had such protections, and only the US constitution has no limitations on the right.

Gun owners in the US teach their children about guns and, when old enough, teach them how to shoot. In gun-owning families, it's a rite of passage and point of pride...in being trusted with such a responsibility. Unenforceable laws do not change strong family legacies. And any attempt to remove the natural human right to effectively defend life is just as immoral as the attempt to claim the unborn or slaves aren't really people with a right to life.

And do you know what we got for all the leftist hyperbole about guns? More and more states passing "constitutional carry", where anyone not prohibited from owning a gun can conceal or open carry without any training, permit, or licensing at all. Personally, I like knowing that people have passed a course on basic gun safety, but if we have to keep fighting a rights-violating agenda, it's better to do that with a lead.

With NRA members being more law-abiding than law enforcement, the vast majority of legal guns are in the best possible hands.

UK terror-related arrests rose almost 60% to record high in 2017
Maybe the UK is small enough to have Bobbies on every corner.
Reply
#12
(Feb 1, 2019 04:09 AM)Leigha Wrote: I agree (with you, Syne) about late term abortions, but that is a separate topic. I won't vote for anyone who thinks that's a ''woman's right.''

The new abortion law that was passed in New York addresses late-term abortions. It allows for them when the fetus is no longer viable or when it’s medically necessary to protect the life of the mother. This new law keeps women from having to deliver a stillborn baby. One woman said that she was sent home and told that she had to wait until the baby died. She said that she could feel it struggling inside her before he/she finally died and then she was forced to deliver a stillborn.



(Jan 20, 2018 04:52 AM)Syne Wrote: Science shows it's human life. All human life has inherent value and natural rights, that's all.

Inherent? You mean god given? It’s a social construct to secure certain rights.

Force motherhood should not be considered a punishment for having sex. Since you’re the one that’s always so quick to point out our biological differences, you should realize that we’re the ones housing the fetuses, and if you were granted any say in the matter our autonomy would be destroyed. When you have sex with us, you give up that right, and you grant us the ability to bear or not to bear your progeny.

And before you throw up child support, you might want to take a look at the stats on how much child support is actually collected. "On average, custodial single parents who receive child support get about $329 per month to help with food, shelter, clothing, medical costs, education, and incidentals."

You may not be able to rid yourself of the financial obligations but can you just imagine if the courts tried to enforce visitation or custody on a man?
Reply
#13
(Feb 2, 2019 06:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 1, 2019 04:09 AM)Leigha Wrote: I agree (with you, Syne) about late term abortions, but that is a separate topic. I won't vote for anyone who thinks that's a ''woman's right.''

The new abortion law that was passed in New York addresses late-term abortions. It allows for them when the fetus is no longer viable or when it’s medically necessary to protect the life of the mother. This new law keeps women from having to deliver a stillborn baby. One woman said that she was sent home and told that she had to wait until the baby died. She said that she could feel it struggling inside her before he/she finally died and then she was forced to deliver a stillborn.
The actual law states:
"A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH."
- https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S240

They do not define "health", which means it could be non-life-threatening illness or mental health, i.e. mother's subjective whim.
There is ZERO language in the bill about viability, so your "when the fetus is no longer viable" is completely made up.

They do define "homicide":
"Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an
unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twen-
ty-four weeks
] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, OR criminally
negligent homicide[, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in
the first degree]."


So killing "an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more [LESS] than twenty-four weeks" is not "murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, OR criminally negligent homicide", regardless of if the woman intends to keep the baby.



Quote:
(Jan 20, 2018 04:52 AM)Syne Wrote: Science shows it's human life. All human life has inherent value and natural rights, that's all.

Inherent? You mean god given? It’s a social construct to secure certain rights.

Inherent, as in a unique and living human organism, with human DNA. You know, science. There is no social construct to what constitutes human life. It's a brute fact of nature.

If you don't have natural human rights, simply by dint of being a living human, then you have no argument against slavery, rape, murder, etc.. Is that what you're arguing, or can you really not see the logical consequences of what you're claiming? O_o
Cannibalism doesn't violate any human rights as long as it's in a cannibalistic society? What if someone kills and eats a member of the in-group? That's called a double-standard, and it is immoral and does violate inherent human rights.

Quote:Force motherhood should not be considered a punishment for having sex. Since you’re the one that’s always so quick to point out our biological differences, you should realize that we’re the ones housing the fetuses, and you if you were granted any say in the matter our autonomy would be destroyed.
Men have zero legal say in abortion, and are forced to take responsibility for sex (or "forced fatherhood" as a punishment, if you like) ALL THE TIME. You whining about women being forced to the same standard is an ignorant, hypocritical double standard. Men have no out after the fact. Just like men, women also have the responsibility prior to sex to take precautions against unwanted pregnancy (and even have the added option of the morning after pill). Failing BOTH of those when you definitely don't want a child is already a moral failing, before even considering abortion.

Having failed to be autonomous in taking reasonable precautions against pregnancy, and even failing to take the last ditch option of Plan B, a woman has proven she cannot be responsible for deciding the fate of another life.

Receptionist:
“How do you write women so well?”

Nicholson:
“I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”
- As Good As It Gets


And as with all other law, your autonomy ends where it harms another. Killing a human life is definitely harm.
If you fail to responsibly exercise your autonomy, you will lose it. Just like every criminal sitting in prison. Grow up, become an adult, and take responsibility for your own actions. Dodgy

Quote:When you have sex with us, you grant us that right, and the ability to bear or not to bear your progeny.

No, we don't grant you the right to kill just by having sex. That would presume that women are actually infantile and cannot take ANY responsibility for their own choices. And if that's the case, you deserve no autonomy at all. You can't have it both way, deary. Either you're an intelligent, responsible adult who can take all reasonable precautions against a known and avoidable outcome or you're a child who demands that she shouldn't be held responsible for any decision...in which case no one gives you any choices.

Quote:And before you throw up child support, you might want to take a look at the stats of how much child support is actually collected. "On average, custodial single parents who receive child support get about $329 per month to help with food, shelter, clothing, medical costs, education, and incidentals."

"On average" is dragged down by fathers in poverty or actively trying to avoid child support, and that quote isn't even from your cited census. A criminal fleeing prosecution does not mean the punishment doesn't exist or does not impact other criminals.


Actually from your cited source:

Child support income accounted for over two-thirds
(70.3 percent) of the mean annual personal income
for custodial parents below poverty who received
full child support.

About half (48.7 percent) of all custodial parents had
either legal or informal child support agreements,
and custodial mothers were more likely to have
agreements
(52.3 percent) than custodial fathers
(31.4 percent).



Quote:You may not be able to rid yourself of the financial obligations but can you just imagine if the courts tried to enforce visitation or custody on a man?

No one forces visitation or custody on a woman, so that's a moot argument. A woman is free to denounce her parental rights, but a man is not. Do you have any points that DON'T make my case for me? O_o
Reply
#14
(Feb 2, 2019 07:37 PM)Syne Wrote: So killing "an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more [LESS] than twenty-four weeks" is not "murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter  in  the  second  degree,  OR  criminally negligent  homicide", regardless of if the woman intends to keep the baby.

Nope. Murder is unlawful killing.

Syne Wrote:If you don't have natural human rights, simply by dint of being a living human, then you have no argument against slavery, rape, murder, etc.. Is that what you're arguing, or can you really not see the logical consequences of what you're claiming? O_o
Cannibalism doesn't violate any human rights as long as it's in a cannibalistic society? What if someone kills and eats a member of the in-group? That's called a double-standard, and it is immoral and does violate inherent human rights.

You know...Tiassa said it best when he said that a right to life despite the fact of death is a matter of religious belief, but even still only occurs within a context of society and judgment.

What the right to life actually means to any one person is their own.

Syne Wrote:Men have zero legal say in abortion, and are forced to take responsibility for sex (or "forced fatherhood" as a punishment, if you like) ALL THE TIME. You whining about women being forced to the same standard is an ignorant, hypocritical double standard. Men have no out after the fact. Just like men, women also have the responsibility prior to sex to take precautions against unwanted pregnancy (and even have the added option of the morning after pill). Failing BOTH of those when you definitely don't want a child is already a moral failing, before even considering abortion.

Men vote, don't they? You keep forgetting that there are pro-choice men out there, too. The public opinion leans towards pro-choice and that, my friend, is what governs our laws.

Syne Wrote:Having failed to be autonomous in taking reasonable precautions against pregnancy, and even failing to take the last ditch option of Plan B, a woman has proven she cannot be responsible for deciding the fate of another life.
Receptionist:
“How do you write women so well?”

Nicholson:
“I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”
- As Good As It Gets

And as with all other law, your autonomy ends where it harms another. Killing a human life is definitely harm.
If you fail to responsibly exercise your autonomy, you will lose it. Just like every criminal sitting in prison. Grow up, become an adult, and take responsibility for your own actions. 

You’re making light of motherhood and childbirth. When men plant their seeds, they should tend to their garden.

Secular Sanity Wrote:When you have sex with us, you grant us that right, and the ability to bear or not to bear your progeny.

Syne Wrote:No, we don't grant you the right to kill just by having sex. That would presume that women are actually infantile and cannot take ANY responsibility for their own choices. And if that's the case, you deserve no autonomy at all. You can't have it both way, deary. Either you're an intelligent, responsible adult who can take all reasonable precautions against a known and avoidable outcome or you're a child who demands that she shouldn't be held responsible for any decision...in which case no one gives you any choices.

Sorry, little buddy, but men lose that right when they give it away. Once your sperm enters her body, it belongs to her, and it’s her choice. Being born is a gift, not a god given right.

Men should choose their friends wisely then, wouldn't you say? Men should only have sex with intelligent responsible women. You can weed out the bad ones that way. Sexual selection, eh? That's how it works, isn't it?

We’re not pro-abortion, silly boy. "Yay! Let’s kill a shit ton of fetuses." We’re pro-choice and there's a big difference.

It may be the cock that crows, but it’s the hen that lays the eggs.—Margaret Thatcher
Reply
#15
(Feb 2, 2019 09:40 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 2, 2019 07:37 PM)Syne Wrote: So killing "an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more [LESS] than twenty-four weeks" is not "murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter  in  the  second  degree,  OR  criminally negligent  homicide", regardless of if the woman intends to keep the baby.

Nope. Murder is unlawful killing.
I didn't say otherwise, so your little straw man seems only intent on avoiding the fact that there's no longer any criminal liability for killing a wanted unborn baby less than 24 weeks gestation. And the fact that they do define "more than twenty-four weeks" as murder.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:If you don't have natural human rights, simply by dint of being a living human, then you have no argument against slavery, rape, murder, etc.. Is that what you're arguing, or can you really not see the logical consequences of what you're claiming? O_o
Cannibalism doesn't violate any human rights as long as it's in a cannibalistic society? What if someone kills and eats a member of the in-group? That's called a double-standard, and it is immoral and does violate inherent human rights.

You know...Tiassa said it best when he said that a right to life despite the fact of death is a matter of religious belief, but even still only occurs within a context of society and judgment.

What the right to life actually means to any one person is their own.
That moron conflates death with killing. Just because everyone dies has nothing to do with having a right to defend yourself and others from intentional killing. In brute nature, you have the right to defend the lives of yourself and others. Whether you succeed or not doesn't change that fact.

Again, assuming no inherent right to life excuses murder, rape, slavery, etc..
But immoral people make immoral arguments.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Men have zero legal say in abortion, and are forced to take responsibility for sex (or "forced fatherhood" as a punishment, if you like) ALL THE TIME. You whining about women being forced to the same standard is an ignorant, hypocritical double standard. Men have no out after the fact. Just like men, women also have the responsibility prior to sex to take precautions against unwanted pregnancy (and even have the added option of the morning after pill). Failing BOTH of those when you definitely don't want a child is already a moral failing, before even considering abortion.

Men vote, don't they? You keep forgetting that there are pro-choice men out there, too. The public opinion leans towards pro-choice and that, my friend, is what governs our laws.
Public opinion only leans, slightly, toward pro-abortion because of euphemistic language. If you ask about killing babies in the womb, you'd get a much different result. Many people vote, on everything, from almost complete ignorance, and public opinion is only a consensus fallacy. And there are plenty of beta males seeking female approval.

None of that addresses or justifies your whining about women benefiting from a double standard.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Having failed to be autonomous in taking reasonable precautions against pregnancy, and even failing to take the last ditch option of Plan B, a woman has proven she cannot be responsible for deciding the fate of another life.
Receptionist:
“How do you write women so well?”

Nicholson:
“I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”
- As Good As It Gets

And as with all other law, your autonomy ends where it harms another. Killing a human life is definitely harm.
If you fail to responsibly exercise your autonomy, you will lose it. Just like every criminal sitting in prison. Grow up, become an adult, and take responsibility for your own actions. 

You’re making light of motherhood and childbirth. When men plant their seeds, they should tend to their garden.
Again, who said otherwise. You just continue to ignore the obvious double standard that presumes women are children, incapable of being as responsible as men.  Rolleyes

Quote:
Secular Sanity Wrote:When you have sex with us, you grant us that right, and the ability to bear or not to bear your progeny.
Syne Wrote:No, we don't grant you the right to kill just by having sex. That would presume that women are actually infantile and cannot take ANY responsibility for their own choices. And if that's the case, you deserve no autonomy at all. You can't have it both way, deary. Either you're an intelligent, responsible adult who can take all reasonable precautions against a known and avoidable outcome or you're a child who demands that she shouldn't be held responsible for any decision...in which case no one gives you any choices.

Sorry, little buddy, but men lose that right when they give it away. Once your sperm enters her body, it belongs to her, and it’s her choice. Being born is a gift, not a god given right.

Men should choose their friends wisely then, wouldn't you say? Men should only have sex with intelligent responsible women. You can weed out the bad ones that way. Sexual selection, eh? That's how it works, isn't it?

We’re not pro-abortion, silly boy. "Yay! Let’s kill a shit ton of fetuses." We’re pro-choice and there's a big difference.

A separate and unique human life does not "belong" to anyone else...unless you endorse slavery. Do you? O_o
Being born is a gift, from those who responsibly choose to deal with the natural consequences of their own behavior. Killing a human life is killing.

Men can't read minds, deary, so there's no foolproof way to "weed out the bad ones". Even seemingly intelligent and responsible women can be duped by feminist lies and euphemisms. Sexual selection doesn't naturally include elective abortion. And why is it SOOOO BAD to expect women to be as responsible and deal with the consequences just like men? And they have Plan B, which men don't get to choose. God forbid feminists ever get real equality.

And you've completely ignored the utter failure of a woman's responsibility, even with more options than a man, in preventing unwanted pregnancies. You're saying "yeah, women are irresponsible, so they should be able to kill babies". You can dress up a pig all you like, but when the end result is "kill[ing] a shit ton of fetuses" (638,169 report to the CDC in 2015 alone), it doesn't matter the self-laudatory excuses.
Reply
#16
(Feb 2, 2019 10:30 PM)Syne Wrote: A separate and unique human life does not "belong" to anyone else...unless you endorse slavery. Do you? O_o

And neither does my womb…unless, of course, you endorse slavery. Do you?

For fucks sake! You sound like someone from the cast of the "Handmaid's Tale".

"Blessed be the fruit"

Creepy! Sad
Reply
#17
(Feb 2, 2019 10:42 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 2, 2019 10:30 PM)Syne Wrote: A separate and unique human life does not "belong" to anyone else...unless you endorse slavery. Do you? O_o

And neither does my womb…unless, of course, you endorse slavery. Do you?

For fucks sake! You sound like someone from the cast of the "Handmaid's Tale".

"Blessed be the fruit"

Creepy!  Sad

Your womb is not a separate and unique human life, nor is anyone suggesting killing it. Dodgy

You're just a fount of irrelevant straw men and avoidance, apparently convincing yourself that women not being responsible is tantamount to rape. Rolleyes

All to desperately cling to your psychopathic justifications for killing.

Creepy!
Reply
#18
Syne Wrote:Again, assuming no inherent right to life excuses murder, rape, slavery, etc..
I don't see any automatic connection between 'inherent right to life' and 'murder,rape and slavery...' - can you clarify your point, please.
Reply
#19
(Feb 2, 2019 11:05 PM)Syne Wrote: Your womb is not a separate and unique human life, nor is anyone suggesting killing it.  Dodgy

I am a "very" unique individual. My womb is part of my body, my property, if you like.

How many people die in war? What is a just cause for war?
Reply
#20
(Feb 2, 2019 11:09 PM)confused2 Wrote:
Syne Wrote:Again, assuming no inherent right to life excuses murder, rape, slavery, etc..
I don't see any automatic connection between 'inherent right to life' and 'murder,rape and slavery...' - can you clarify your point, please.

If you have no right to your own life, anyone who is stronger has the de facto justification (might makes right) to kill, rape, or enslave you. There is only logical justification against murder, rape, and slavery if the individual has the inherent right to their own life. We do not own others because they already own themselves, so to speak. We do not kill because their life is not ours to take. And we do not rape because their body is not ours to do with as we wish.



(Feb 2, 2019 11:51 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 2, 2019 11:05 PM)Syne Wrote: Your womb is not a separate and unique human life, nor is anyone suggesting killing it.  Dodgy

I am a "very" unique individual. My womb is part of my body, my property, if you like.

Your womb "has" human life; it is not a unique human organism. [Smh, why do I have to keep telling people this on a science forum?]

Without your right to life, you cannot claim your body as property. You cannot own another unique human organism without tacitly endorsing slavery.

Quote:How many people die in war? What is a just cause for war?

Wow, what a non sequitur. You must feel the need to distract from the facts you patently refuse to address...like science and nature.

Killing people who have intentionally harmed or threaten to harm others is very different from killing unborn babies who couldn't possibly be guilty of intentionally harming anyone. Oops, there's that pesky morality you've apparently never heard of. Rolleyes

You're just a creep trying to justify killing the innocent.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)