Retro vintage lady laughing

Retro vintage lady laughing | I GO DEAF TO DEMOCRATS WHEN THEY SAY THE CARE ABOUT CHILDREN | image tagged in retro vintage lady laughing | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
240 views, 12 upvotes, Made by JJJR 1 month ago in politics retro vintage lady laughing
Retro vintage lady laughing memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
1 up
trash 1950s """"""meme"""""" to own the libs
reply
1 up, 1 reply
How many has the average Republican adopted?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Face You Make Robert Downey Jr Meme | SO CREATIVE | image tagged in memes,face you make robert downey jr | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
A lot less than the policies of Democrats have killed, for sure. Actively causing damage is not justifiable based on the inaction of another. Republicans and Democrats adopt but only Democrats actively seek to kill children and support organizations which do so. It is the central tenant of their platform which is a major, if not THE major hill they will die on. Adoption is on the RNC platform while abortion is on the DNCs. So, it could be said that you are begging the question by making the assumption that Repubs don't adopt. Even if they didn't though - killing innocent unborn children is wrong. BTW, I don't think the RNC is doing enough to stop this scourge and that makes them immoral in a different way. On this issue though - the Dems should just shut up as they don't have a leg to stand on.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
scumbag god | "KILLING INNOCENT UNBORN CHILDREN IS WRONG" HOLD MY BEER | image tagged in scumbag god | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
I don't see any Democrats supporting the killing of children. I know you are referring to abortion, but that's not what abortion is.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
There you go again. As soon as you can't defend your position, you twist words (arguing that unborn aren't "children*) and you then b**ch about God or the Bible.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
1. Fetuses aren't children. You want to call them children to make appeals to emotion.

2. The god of the Bible kills babies in the Bible. Do you think that was wrong of him? Yes or no?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
1. Fetuses are human beings, you don't want to call them that because it makes your denial easier

2. No one brought Good into this, but you... again. It's obvious that you have an axe to grind with Christians based on your constant obsession. I've tried to help you with basic Biblical messages many times before and you only respond with stupidity in a condescending tone. I do my best to avoid pointless discussions with you.
reply
1 up
Fetuses are human. I never said they weren't. But they aren't children.

Condescending tone? I doubt that. I may be critical of stuff in the Bible, but when I discuss it, I discuss it as rationally and intelligently as I can.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It isn't? Then what is being killed? It's an unborn child and they even sell the body parts. It's not a car with car parts. It's a baby. That's what women get pregnant with - babies.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
fetus =/= baby
embryo =/= baby
blastocyst =/= baby
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Playing with words again I see. If it's a fertilized human egg, it's a human being regardless of what you want to call it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Having human DNA doesn't make it a human being. A fingernail is not a human being but it has human DNA.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
PER OUR PREVIOUS THREAD:
Thanks – If real GOOD exists as well as real EVIL – as you agree with- then they are OBJECTIVE. Otherwise, it’s just you opinion against Hitler’s and we could never know anything. You and Hitler would be at a stalemate as your opinion would be no better than his. We all know that what he did was objectively evil and is evil for all people in all places and at all times.

Regarding your moral standards, according to your criteria of subjectivity, Hitler’s moral standards are valid as yours - on your own view. Again, there is a real GOOD and EVIL but your criteria let’s humans make it up and because we can, then Hitler can determine that killing innocent people is GOOD and you have no defense against it. You are fighting with Hitler in the Matrix and there is no objective good or evil inside of it.

You claim that the fetus is not equal and then go on to claim that you believe in human equality. Which is it? That is a contradiction. You cannot have it both ways. A fetus is a human being. Human life begins at conception and a fetus is post conception.

How do YOU define a person and why is it important? Who determines when I am a person? I am fully human at conception so what other hoops do I need to jump through in order to be part of the human family. I’m there at conception- as you agreed with. Adding any layers on top of that denies human equality. You are stating that some humans have less value because…..(fill in the blank).

Last, a cow is not a human and while unique, is not made in the image of the creator. No animals are human and I think we both know that they are different and won’t have to go into arguing the obvious. I hope this helps though.
reply
0 ups
Other people have described it better than I could. Just because good and evil exist, that doesn't mean they are objective. Morality can be subjective and still exist. The basis for morality is flourishing and well-being. Things that contribute to human well-being are generally considered moral, and things that diminish well-being are generally considered immoral. I can say that what Hitler did was immoral because it harmed many millions of people.

No one has ever demonstrated a source for morality outside of ourselves, and whenever they try, their arguments fail for one reason or another. Many Christians for example claim to get their morality from the Bible, yet this clearly isn't true, because they don't support much of what the Bible tells them to do, such as honor killings and executing people for blasphemy.

I can claim that I support human equality and also say a fetus isn't equal, because it's not a fully developed person. And if you say a human was made in the image of a creator, what's your scientific evidence for that claim?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Biological human life begins at conception. A fetus, an embryo and a blastocyst are all stages of unborn humans after conception. They are described as "offspring". Therefore they qualify as an unborn baby as they aren't fully developed yet.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Human life begins at conception, yes. But a blastocyst, embryo and early-stage fetus don't have the same value (in my opinion) as a baby, because they aren't fully developed or viable outside the womb, among other reasons.

The issue isn't life, it's personhood. And in my view an embryo doesn't have personhood like a baby does.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Please excuse me but why should another human being’s being allowed to live or die be based on YOUR OPINION?? No offence but your opinion and even mine is irrelevant to this subject. Furthermore it is subjective. Everyone has one so why should we listen to yours. How about we stick to FACTS, LOGIC and MORALITY? They don’t change, while our opinions do. Someone else could have a different opinion and so on.

What are the facts? We both agree with the FACT that life begins at conception – That is good. We have a human being at the lift off point!!!

What gives human beings value? That is important because if a human or anything else has no value then it or they can be discarded. Your opinion is that humans who aren’t fully developed don’t have value. This is problematic because newborns aren’t fully developed either and your criteria would apply to them. It would also apply to humans at even 18 years of age. So, basing the right to life on development doesn’t seem to work. And why should that be the criteria? Someone else is going to say brain function, so why should it be the criteria over all others? It’s subjective and arbitrary.

What is personhood and why should my right to life depend on some made up term like “personhood”? Again, it’s subjective. Why should you be able to conjure up a bar which humans have live up to or if they fail to do so then they lose their right to life? What if someone came up with some criteria which included you?

Consider this regarding the question of value. You would need to come up with a criteria which ALL humans have and we would have to have it equally. Fully developed humans shouldn’t have more of a right to life than less developed humans. We aren’t equal in that area. Size doesn’t meet any standard either. There is only one quality all humans share and share equality – our common human nature. It is what gives us human equality. Every other criteria imposes an elitism on those with less of some arbitrary criteria. It’s how we get genocides. Some other human decides another’s worth. That is what you are doing unwittingly.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"...why should another human being’s being allowed to live or die be based on YOUR OPINION??"

On whose opinion should it be based? Clearly it has to be based on somebody's

"Furthermore it is subjective."

Exactly my point

"How about we stick to FACTS, LOGIC and MORALITY? They don’t change, while our opinions do."

Morality is subjective. What one person considers moral, someone else may not.

Human life begins at conception. I never disputed that. But that doesn't mean a fetus/embryo has the same rights as a baby.

"...newborns aren’t fully developed either and your criteria would apply to them."

My criteria wouldn't apply to newborns because they've completed the gestational process and been born. It certainly wouldn't "apply to humans at even 18 years of age."

"So, basing the right to life on development doesn’t seem to work. And why should that be the criteria?...It’s subjective and arbitrary."

I'm not saying that should be the only criteria. But that's a big part of it. And you're right, it's subjective and arbitrary.

"What is personhood and why should my right to life depend on some made up term like “personhood”?

Personhood means the quality or state of being an individual person. Why should your right to life depend on some made up term? What does it being a made up term have to do with anything? Justice is a made up term. Does that mean we can throw justice out the window?

"Why should you be able to conjure up a bar which humans have live up to or if they fail to do so then they lose their right to life? What if someone came up with some criteria which included you?"

Some people already have. Some people say that I don't have a right to live because I'm white. Or a man. Or not heterosexual. Or an atheist. But it's what society as a whole says that impacts which rules we live by.

"You would need to come up with a criteria which ALL humans have and we would have to have it equally."

I would more-or-less agree

"Fully developed humans shouldn’t have more of a right to life than less developed humans."

I disagree, at least as far as prenatal development goes.

"There is only one quality all humans share and share equality – our common human nature."

It's a circular argument. You're saying all humans have what makes us human.

"Some other human decides another’s worth."

So the question is, how do we determine human worth? Clearly not all humans have the same value, or we could never justify killing anyone.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Thanks for weighing in. I am afraid that you misunderstand the nature of morality and you are confusing it with opinion. Opinions are subjective and morality is objective. Your opinion can be in alignment with morality or not. Your opinion is not right or wrong- morality is right or wrong. A plantation owner in the Mississippi in 1820 could have an opinion that slavery is right but that doesn’t make it so. In the same way, you could have an opinion that killing an innocent human being because they are inconvenient is morally right, but that doesn’t make it so. If morality was subjective then you can’t say that Hitler was wrong, slavery was wrong or gay bashing is wrong. It would be one person’s opinion against another’s. We really do know that these things are wrong regardless of the opinions of Hitler or a slave owner. So, it’s a self - defeating claim and therefore cannot be true. Good and evil exist and so does right and wrong. You affirm it even when you deny it.

If both the fetus and baby are human then why shouldn’t they birth have rights? You have already agreed with the science – human life begins at conception. Do you believe in human equality? Do Christians have more of a right to life than atheists? Do blacks have more of a right to life than whites? If human equality exists then it applies to all humans. It doesn’t matter that one is smaller, less developed, more dependent, inside another’s body, atheist, black, white or green or yellow. Humans are priceless because we are made in the image of our creator and each are the only one of our kind in the history of the world. There has never been another one of us and after we are gone, there will never be another. You are unique and so is every human being.
0 ups
You say that morality is objective. How do you know that? What is your evidence?

"If morality was subjective then you can’t say that Hitler was wrong, slavery was wrong or gay bashing is wrong."

Of course I can. I can say I find them wrong based on my own subjective moral standards. It seems like you're confusing subjective morality with no morality at all.

"Good and evil exist and so does right and wrong."

I agree. That doesn't mean I think they are objective, or at least not absolute.

"If both the fetus and baby are human then why shouldn’t they birth have rights?"

As I mentioned before, I don't consider them to be of equal value because the fetus is not sufficiently developed to be at the point of personhood.

"Do you believe in human equality?"

Yes

"Do Christians have more of a right to life than atheists?"

No

"Do blacks have more of a right to life than whites?"

No

"If human equality exists then it applies to all humans."

I would say it applies to all persons. If it applied to all humans, we could never put anyone to death because they have the right to life, don't they?

Yes, humans are all unique...so what? Every cow is unique. Should we not kill them for food?
Flip Settings
Retro vintage lady laughing memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
I GO DEAF TO DEMOCRATS; WHEN THEY SAY THE CARE ABOUT CHILDREN
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback