Abortion

[Jarhyn]

He has the right to exist anyway.

I don't mean to snip too much, but I feel this is ultimately the driving force of Learner's position. When I read it, it actually sounds quite depressing, amoral, and vacuous.

The person has a right to "exist". While certainly no harm is meant in the statement, it does seem to imply an utter disregard for people in general. After all, what does it mean to "exist"? It just means to be alive. In a single statement, it appears to show just hollow the 'pro-life' movement is. Where the entire goal is simply existence. It helps explain why the situation regarding women that are pregnant and post-pregnancy don't have much or really any (?) support from the pro-life movement. Because it is merely about "existing". Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.

Actually, that isn't true. If that baby grows up and is gay, they'll care enough to keep it from getting married. They'll march against their rights. They'll bark out against LGBT, like they did against blacks in America. Sure, they have the "right to exist", but that is their only right!

Ooh! Does that mean that if I were to figure out how to make people with circuitry and wires and magnets, because people have a right to exist, that I have a right, neigh, a responsibility to manufacture unlimited numbers of these things?

Never mind that they are horrible racists and like to eject corrosive grease on the masonry.

View attachment 38932

Oh, so the tables have turned with who says the quiet part so loudly!

But yes. By my measure Learner is signing themselves up for Benderpocalypse.

After all, people like Bender have a right to exist.

Every chip and memory that can host Bender, by that measure, must be allowed to!

 

[Rhea]

Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

When you obtain a countervailing opinion from a current "nearly invisible clumps of cells, devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains” I will reconsider my stance. Meanwhile, I stand with actual human beings.

You could allow them to be actual human beings, not cut them short of the opportunity.

You appear to be advocating that if it takes enslaving a woman to provide an opportunity (not reality, but opportunity) for a fetus to get to the point of personhood then it is the right thing to do to enslave that woman and provide an opportunity to a being that does not yet exist.

You appear to be saying out loud, that women are nothing but vessels to hold your sperm, and you dismiss their (women’s) rights like a toddler dropping a toy when it sees a newer toy.


You don’t even consider her HUMAN, do you? Just a vessel waiting for you to grow something that you want.


You never talk about her outside of the context of her use as a vessel for the being you want to have exist. SHE does not exist to you. You have completely dehumanized her and turned her into an object that you use.


Go back and read your posts. See if you can find the place where you talk about her as a living, dreaming, growing human with any rights at all, other than existing for your use.

I am a woman. I am a person with rights. You have no right to assign my body to your use. NOT EVER.

 

[Rhea]

No one has a “right to come into existence.” Before your existence, you have no rights. Before you become a person, you do not have the rights of personhood.

Men do not have a right to impregnate women so that something with the “right to exist” gets created.


Before personhood - before the advent of cognition - no being has a right to something it does not yet have.
And moreover, even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER. That’s why rape is illegal. That’s why kidnapping is illegal.

 

[Jarhyn]

No one has a “right to come into existence.” Before your existence, you have no rights. Before you become a person, you do not have the rights of personhood.

Men do not have a right to impregnate women so that something with the “right to exist” gets created.


Before personhood - before the advent of cognition - no being has a right to something it does not yet have.
And moreover, even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER. That’s why rape is illegal. That’s why kidnapping is illegal.

Exactly my point with regards the Benderpocalypse.

Before I make them exist they have no rights to exist. By all means I don't have the right to make them exist in the first place in fact. I think rather people would fight me pretty hard against polluting the world in such a way with people it has no right to destroy once they are here.

 

[atrib]

You could allow them to be actual human beings, not cut them short of the opportunity.

In a post in another thread you are actively defending God's right to indiscriminately murder the entire human population of the planet - actual living people. While here you seem to be saying the a fetus has the right to live, and that this right should override the rights of the woman carrying the fetus. Talk about hypocrisy!

A woman doesn't/shouldn't have the right to terminate the existence of the fetus she is carrying because the fetus has rights. But God has the right to terminate every single human life on the planet, and the humans don't have the same right that the fetus has. Do you see the problem?

 

[Bomb#20]

... In a single statement, it appears to show just hollow the 'pro-life' movement is. ... Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.

Actually, that isn't true. If that baby grows up and is gay, they'll care enough to keep it from getting married. They'll march against their rights. They'll bark out against LGBT, like they did against blacks in America. Sure, they have the "right to exist", but that is their only right!

The "pro-life" movement barked out against blacks in America? Can you quote "them"? Or do you just mean that you put anti-abortionists and segregationists in the same mental category, and people acquire guilt-by-association by getting associated with somebody by you?

You're a leftist. The Khmer Rouge were leftists. Jimmy, you really oughtn't to have murdered two million Cambodians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well it depends whether of not, you see their existence as living humans has any meaningful significance.

Conclusion assumed in argument.

You're arguing about whether they have right, inherently assuming they are already people.

In my book, no mind = living tissue, not a person. It's the mind that matters, no mind = no value. Having the potential to become a person doesn't grant any rights in my book.

 

[Bomb#20]

No one has a “right to come into existence.” Before your existence, you have no rights. Before you become a person, you do not have the rights of personhood.

Men do not have a right to impregnate women so that something with the “right to exist” gets created.


Before personhood - before the advent of cognition - no being has a right to something it does not yet have.
And moreover, even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER. That’s why rape is illegal. That’s why kidnapping is illegal.

Exactly my point with regards the Benderpocalypse.

Before I make them exist they have no rights to exist. By all means I don't have the right to make them exist in the first place in fact. I think rather people would fight me pretty hard against polluting the world in such a way with people it has no right to destroy once they are here.

See, this is why bringing up other seemingly unrelated situations is so important to moral reasoning -- it's how we test moral principles to find out if they're right. Otherwise Learner argues from one principle, you two argue from a different principle, and in a situation where the principles conflict both sides judge their own principle by how pretty it looks to them, so they just shout at each other. "NOT EVER.", the lady says. Good argument.

No, "even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER." is not a correct principle. Sometimes a person does have a right to the use of other people's bodies against their will. We have a constitutional right to the use of other people's bodies. It's right there in the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, ..."​

In the U.S. we have the right to drag an unwilling witness into court and put him on the stand, and we have the right to use his mouth and his brain to tell the jury what he knows.

If you think the Sixth Amendment is a bad law, because "NOT EVER.", let's talk again after you've been wrongfully accused of a murder, and after the guy who saw you ten miles away during the crime has refused to back up your alibi because he was doing something embarrassing at the time, and after you've decided to stand on principle and willingly go to prison for life rather than subpoena him, because "NOT EVER."

You can of course still argue quite reasonably that a fetus doesn't have a right to inflict months of wear and tear on a woman's body, but you'll need a better argument than "no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will.".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No one has a “right to come into existence.” Before your existence, you have no rights. Before you become a person, you do not have the rights of personhood.

Men do not have a right to impregnate women so that something with the “right to exist” gets created.


Before personhood - before the advent of cognition - no being has a right to something it does not yet have.
And moreover, even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER. That’s why rape is illegal. That’s why kidnapping is illegal.

Exactly my point with regards the Benderpocalypse.

Before I make them exist they have no rights to exist. By all means I don't have the right to make them exist in the first place in fact. I think rather people would fight me pretty hard against polluting the world in such a way with people it has no right to destroy once they are here.

See, this is why bringing up other seemingly unrelated situations is so important to moral reasoning -- it's how we test moral principles to find out if they're right. Otherwise Learner argues from one principle, you two argue from a different principle, and in a situation where the principles conflict both sides judge their own principle by how pretty it looks to them, so they just shout at each other. "NOT EVER.", the lady says. Good argument.

No, "even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER." is not a correct principle. Sometimes a person does have a right to the use of other people's bodies against their will. We have a constitutional right to the use of other people's bodies. It's right there in the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, ..."​

In the U.S. we have the right to drag an unwilling witness into court and put him on the stand, and we have the right to use his mouth and his brain to tell the jury what he knows.

I agree that using body against one's will is a weak argument. About as weak as suggesting the Sixth Amendment conflicts with that argument.

The state needs a warrant to get a blood sample. Now this SCOTUS could over-rule that, but until then, SCOTUS has been clear that the body belongs to the person, and there is a substantial right to personal privacy.

Which does actually bring up a remarkable consideration. The state shortly will be able to force a pregnant woman to remain pregnant and give birth via simple legislation, but can not force a pregnant woman to provide a blood sample without a warrant. Dude, WTF?!?

 

[Bomb#20]

I saw one fellow, who I would assume is among many alive today, who said he was thankful he wasn't aborted - the mother changed her mind. Feeling from their perspective. They have the right to EXIST!

Celine Dion was also greatful she wasn't aborted I read somewhere. Some may have issues with that, not being fans of her music.

Do you think that's a good argument for making abortion illegal?

Well it depends whether of not, you see their existence as living humans has any meaningful significance.

What makes you think it depends on that? Of course their existence as living humans has meaningful significance. So what? How does that transform what you wrote into a good argument?

I saw one fellow, who I would assume is among many alive today, who was thankful his mother's rapist wasn't tackled and dragged off of her and arrested until after he'd reached climax. From the son's perspective, he has a right to exist too.

I'm assuming the difference here is: the two inviduals who were greatful when they weren't aborted, said it from their own mouths.. well ok, I read Celine Dion supposedly said it, but the fellow said it while being recorded on you tube. .

So I would ask: did the fellow you saw, actually say "He was thankful his mother's rapist wasn't tackled and dragged off of her and arrested until after he'd reached climax?" Or, do you mean that "Technically" and paraphrasing thats what he's saying?
He has the right to exist anyway.

What?

Are you seriously suggesting that a person acquires a retroactive right to his mother to have been forced against her will to give birth to him by saying he's thankful?!? Do other rights work that way in your moral code? If I steal your car, is that something that's morally okay for me to do unless you explicitly told me not to steal it?

Just to clarify, I didn't hear any of the rape victims' sons I saw say anything at all about their mother's rapes -- I inferred that at least one of them was thankful to be alive based on general statistical considerations. What difference does that make? People's right to exist doesn't depend on their saying the right magic words.

Do you think that's a good argument for making it illegal to interfere with rapes until the rapists finish impregnating their victims?

There are no arguments for the rapist!

Nobody was offering it as an argument for the rapist; it was an argument for the rapist's child. You're proposing that "X would have prevented a person from existing who's now thankful to be alive" qualifies as a reason to outlaw X, when X="abortion". Well, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Does it qualify as a reason to outlaw X when X="interrupting a rape"?

But you must mean in context, if correct, that making abortion illegal is not a good deterrent, which of course isn't.

No, of course that's not what I mean in context. I mean exactly what I said. You were committing an obvious "special-pleading fallacy". So I pointed out the logic problem in your argument, by applying your inference procedure to a different situation, to show your inference procedure has appalling implications.

 

[Jarhyn]

No one has a “right to come into existence.” Before your existence, you have no rights. Before you become a person, you do not have the rights of personhood.

Men do not have a right to impregnate women so that something with the “right to exist” gets created.


Before personhood - before the advent of cognition - no being has a right to something it does not yet have.
And moreover, even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER. That’s why rape is illegal. That’s why kidnapping is illegal.

Exactly my point with regards the Benderpocalypse.

Before I make them exist they have no rights to exist. By all means I don't have the right to make them exist in the first place in fact. I think rather people would fight me pretty hard against polluting the world in such a way with people it has no right to destroy once they are here.

See, this is why bringing up other seemingly unrelated situations is so important to moral reasoning -- it's how we test moral principles to find out if they're right. Otherwise Learner argues from one principle, you two argue from a different principle, and in a situation where the principles conflict both sides judge their own principle by how pretty it looks to them, so they just shout at each other. "NOT EVER.", the lady says. Good argument.

No, "even AFTER personhood is achieved, STILL no person has a right to the use of another person’s body against their will. NOT EVER." is not a correct principle. Sometimes a person does have a right to the use of other people's bodies against their will. We have a constitutional right to the use of other people's bodies. It's right there in the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, ..."​

In the U.S. we have the right to drag an unwilling witness into court and put him on the stand, and we have the right to use his mouth and his brain to tell the jury what he knows.

I agree that using body against one's will is a weak argument. About as weak as suggesting the Sixth Amendment conflicts with that argument.

The state needs a warrant to get a blood sample. Now this SCOTUS could over-rule that, but until then, SCOTUS has been clear that the body belongs to the person, and there is a substantial right to personal privacy.

Which does actually bring up a remarkable consideration. The state shortly will be able to force a pregnant woman to remain pregnant and give birth via simple legislation, but can not force a pregnant woman to provide a blood sample without a warrant. Dude, WTF?!?

I would say that the argument that the state has a right to compel "use of the body" is not being faithfully treated here. Taking something out of the body, expecting a song and dance under penalty for noncompliance is a different matter than taking some physical element of their bodily structure away, particularly to give to someone else.

We recognize the difference between compulsion to speak, and give true information about some event or situation as ones morals allow them to give (and the easy and oft acceptable lie that one knows nothing).

To that end these situations as compulsion of testimony and removal, by compulsion, of bodily structures is different.

I argue in fact in some ways that taking someone's phone is similar, to the point where it ought be considered legally significant, to compelled removal of bodily structures.

I am not a judge nor lawyer of the bar, and am not positioned to make this argument, to argue this precedent but I would, nor to accept it in judgement but I would in a heartbeat.

Even so, we do not force the submission of such. I can as much as I choose to go to jail for drunk driving having chosen to refuse giving of my body and then leave without having given, go to jail for refusing to speak, and then leave jail without having spoken.

 

[Elixir]

Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

When you obtain a countervailing opinion from a current "nearly invisible clumps of cells, devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains” I will reconsider my stance. Meanwhile, I stand with actual human beings.

You could allow them to be actual human beings, not cut them short of the opportunity.

Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.
Meanwhile you should thank your God that you can be one of those uninvolved busybodies trying to exercise uninvited control over the bodily functions of other people.

 

[Tigers!]

How reassuring that there are unknown people out there that would provide unstated support for women (teenagers?) who's lives you want to control for a bit. whose lives they wish to help

FIFY

Oh gosh... I can't wait for all that support to come flushing out of the woodwork for those pregnant 14, 15, and 16 year olds, also known as teenaged daughters. You a psychologist? You could help with the teenagers suffering from depression, and you could explain to them how their lives are naturally forfeited for a period of time because you feel the fetus's right to be born supersedes any rights they have. It'd be comforting.

It is curious how all anti-abortion legislation never seems to include funding for these types of supports... or pro-life groups rallying together to create many support clinics that'll have people ready at a moments notice to assist, even at two in the morning. Of course, the answer at that point from the likes of the "pro-life" movement would be the family should help assist. Because no right is more important than one that can be instilled on others that doesn't impact them.

My church is part of a small local church network who attempts to help, usually, but not exclusively, teenage girls who need help with their new born or very young children. We are given leads and ask the mothers if they need help. No coercion or forced measures. We provide advice, mentoring and some supplies. These young mothers are shown skills such as washing their babies, help with breastfeeding, help with sleeping patterns, getting to see doctors etc. With such help many of these young mothers will do a fine job.
We are limited in time & space as to what we can provide.
And yes getting funding to do more is difficult to impossible. We will do what we can.

 

[Elixir]

How reassuring that there are unknown people out there that would provide unstated support for women (teenagers?) who's lives you want to control for a bit. whose lives they wish to help

FIFY

What gives you the temerity to subject people who don’t want it to your “help” (that might kill them)?
Is it some superstitious/religious conviction that you can’t be wrong?

HINT: trying to exercise uninvited control over other peoples bodies is WRONG.

ETA: just saw your clarification. I am still skeptical, as I have seen religious “help” meted out in some very harmful ways.
If my skepticism is misplaced, good on you and I apologize. In any event, I agree that once a young woman has given birth, there is a societal obligation to support her and the child. Assuming it was her choice to carry to term.

 

[Learner]

He has the right to exist anyway.

I don't mean to snip too much, but I feel this is ultimately the driving force of Learner's position. When I read it, it actually sounds quite depressing, amoral, and vacuous. The person has a right to "exist". While certainly no harm is meant in the statement, it does seem to imply an utter disregard for people in general. After all, what does it mean to "exist"? It just means to be alive. In a single statement, it appears to show just hollow the 'pro-life' movement is.

Here we have the word exist, given the context impression of an object of 'little or no significant value', like presenting with a mindset view that "large rocks, and umbrellas exist". The expression "what does it mean to exist?", followed by, "It just means to be alive", seems to imply the contrary to his post quoted above, in which it suggests instead, that it is Mr. Higgins who's actually disregarding people in general. So I guess I'd wonder, what does Mr. Higgins think it means 'to be alive'?

Btw, pro-lifers, who would be a broad range of individuals, around the world who are not necessarily part of the particular movement organization described by posters.

Where the entire goal is simply existence. It helps explain why the situation regarding women that are pregnant and post-pregnancy don't have much or really any (?) support from the pro-life movement. Because it is merely about "existing". Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.

The line "The entire goal is simply existence" sounds so,so devaluatingly wrong. Existence i.e.,context to be alive, should obviously be regarded for both the mother and the child; emphasizing that it's their well being combined that is to be the main goal. AND of course, if it should come to politics, and political descisions where a state decides to make abortion illegal. The state should in turn with the same clout, and duty make the provisons and funds to support those mothers and child.

"Once a baby exists, they don't give a damn" is not a good thing, I can agree with Mr. Higgins, if it is the case. I may not accept wholly his statistics, at the moment, perhaps it's better on a case by case basis, rather than take in what could be broad generization, if there is some community support somewhere that does actually happen. But... here and also the quote below. We see what looks like an expression, a thinking loud, an undelining hint of the inconvenience of giving birth, although be it, under the circumstances mentioned, where there's been a lack of support.

Actually, that isn't true. If that baby grows up and is gay, they'll care enough to keep it from getting married. They'll march against their rights. They'll bark out against LGBT, like they did against blacks in America. Sure, they have the "right to exist", but that is their only right!

 

[prideandfall]

He has the right to exist anyway.

I don't mean to snip too much, but I feel this is ultimately the driving force of Learner's position. When I read it, it actually sounds quite depressing, amoral, and vacuous. The person has a right to "exist". While certainly no harm is meant in the statement, it does seem to imply an utter disregard for people in general. After all, what does it mean to "exist"? It just means to be alive. In a single statement, it appears to show just hollow the 'pro-life' movement is.

Here we have the word exist, given the context impression of an object of 'little or no significant value', like presenting with a mindset view that "large rocks, and umbrellas exist". The expression "what does it mean to exist?", followed by, "It just means to be alive", seems to imply the contrary to his post quoted above, in which it suggests instead, that it is Mr. Higgins who's actually disregarding people in general. So I guess I'd wonder, what does Mr. Higgins think it means 'to be alive'?

Btw, pro-lifers, who would be a broad range of individuals, around the world who are not necessarily part of the particular movement organization described by posters.

Where the entire goal is simply existence. It helps explain why the situation regarding women that are pregnant and post-pregnancy don't have much or really any (?) support from the pro-life movement. Because it is merely about "existing". Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.

The line "The entire goal is simply existence" sounds so,so devaluatingly wrong. Existence i.e.,context to be alive, should obviously be regarded for both the mother and the child; emphasizing that it's their well being combined that is to be the main goal. AND of course, if it should come to politics, and political descisions where a state decides to make abortion illegal. The state should in turn with the same clout, and duty make the provisons and funds to support those mothers and child.

"Once a baby exists, they don't give a damn" is not a good thing, I can agree with Mr. Higgins, if it is the case. I may not accept wholly his statistics, at the moment, perhaps it's better on a case by case basis, rather than take in what could be broad generization, if there is some community support somewhere that does actually happen. But... here and also the quote below. We see what looks like an expression, a thinking loud, an undelining hint of the inconvenience of giving birth, although be it, under the circumstances mentioned, where there's been a lack of support.

Actually, that isn't true. If that baby grows up and is gay, they'll care enough to keep it from getting married. They'll march against their rights. They'll bark out against LGBT, like they did against blacks in America. Sure, they have the "right to exist", but that is their only right!

taking something that isn't and then forcing it to be, is the most reprehensibly vile, evil, immoral, disgusting thing that any human being is physically or existentially capable of doing.

the foundational premise of your entire position is predicated on an abomination.

 

[Learner]

Fair enough point of view from a former "nearly invisible clumps of cells that was devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains", who's here to tells us.

When you obtain a countervailing opinion from a current "nearly invisible clumps of cells, devoid of hopes,desires,pleasures or pains” I will reconsider my stance. Meanwhile, I stand with actual human beings.

You could allow them to be actual human beings, not cut them short of the opportunity.

Tell it to 99.99999999999999+% of my sperm.
That’s NOT how life works in the real world.

I agree. Since when did sperm develope into a full human by itself?

This should answer Bilbys post too, about the saving sperm idea..

 

[Learner]

He has the right to exist anyway.

I don't mean to snip too much, but I feel this is ultimately the driving force of Learner's position. When I read it, it actually sounds quite depressing, amoral, and vacuous. The person has a right to "exist". While certainly no harm is meant in the statement, it does seem to imply an utter disregard for people in general. After all, what does it mean to "exist"? It just means to be alive. In a single statement, it appears to show just hollow the 'pro-life' movement is.

Here we have the word exist, given the context impression of an object of 'little or no significant value', like presenting with a mindset view that "large rocks, and umbrellas exist". The expression "what does it mean to exist?", followed by, "It just means to be alive", seems to imply the contrary to his post quoted above, in which it suggests instead, that it is Mr. Higgins who's actually disregarding people in general. So I guess I'd wonder, what does Mr. Higgins think it means 'to be alive'?

Btw, pro-lifers, who would be a broad range of individuals, around the world who are not necessarily part of the particular movement organization described by posters.

Where the entire goal is simply existence. It helps explain why the situation regarding women that are pregnant and post-pregnancy don't have much or really any (?) support from the pro-life movement. Because it is merely about "existing". Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.

The line "The entire goal is simply existence" sounds so,so devaluatingly wrong. Existence i.e.,context to be alive, should obviously be regarded for both the mother and the child; emphasizing that it's their well being combined that is to be the main goal. AND of course, if it should come to politics, and political descisions where a state decides to make abortion illegal. The state should in turn with the same clout, and duty make the provisons and funds to support those mothers and child.

"Once a baby exists, they don't give a damn" is not a good thing, I can agree with Mr. Higgins, if it is the case. I may not accept wholly his statistics, at the moment, perhaps it's better on a case by case basis, rather than take in what could be broad generization, if there is some community support somewhere that does actually happen. But... here and also the quote below. We see what looks like an expression, a thinking loud, an undelining hint of the inconvenience of giving birth, although be it, under the circumstances mentioned, where there's been a lack of support.

Actually, that isn't true. If that baby grows up and is gay, they'll care enough to keep it from getting married. They'll march against their rights. They'll bark out against LGBT, like they did against blacks in America. Sure, they have the "right to exist", but that is their only right!

taking something that isn't and then forcing it to be, is the most reprehensibly vile, evil, immoral, disgusting thing that any human being is physically or existentially capable of doing.

You must think ill then, of those who weren't able support or protect her from falling into that situation in the very first place. You get the society you wish for, so to speak.

the foundational premise of your entire position is predicated on an abomination.

I see, it seems the abomination is as I say in the above. i.e. allowing it to happen in the first place. This includes decieving the very young, telling them they're grown ups.

 

[prideandfall]

You must think ill then, of those who weren't able support or protect her from falling into that situation in the very first place. You get the society you wish for, so to speak.

breeding is the most morally evil thing a human being is capable of.
anything else after might also be shitty, but it's all secondary compared to the original act.

the foundational premise of your entire position is predicated on an abomination.

I see, it seems the abomination is as I say in the above. i.e. allowing it to happen in the first place. This includes decieving the very young, telling them they're grown ups.

i mean sure, if everything anyone says exists only to reinforce whatever semi-incoherent rambling you're spewing out.

 

[Learner]

You must think ill then, of those who weren't able support or protect her from falling into that situation in the very first place. You get the society you wish for, so to speak.

breeding is the most morally evil thing a human being is capable of.
anything else after might also be shitty, but it's all secondary compared to the original act.

Breeding also an abomination I gather. Fair enough position to take, based on the premise of your personal moral opinion.

the foundational premise of your entire position is predicated on an abomination.

I see, it seems the abomination is as I say in the above. i.e. allowing it to happen in the first place. This includes decieving the very young, telling them they're grown ups.

i mean sure, if everything anyone says exists only to reinforce whatever semi-incoherent rambling you're spewing out.

I'd guess rightly, that there won't be many on this side, or, that much said to 'reinforce' my semi-incoherent ramblings, obviously not being atheist on the thread, sure.