JJJR (84233)
Joined 2018-01-31
Submissions: 176 (174 featured)
Creations: 262
Comments: 198

Latest Submissions See All

Latest Comments

Founding Fathers
I can't tell where you are on this but if I am reading you wrong then please correct. It seems you are saying that it's like getting a tooth pulled and it shouldn't be anyone else's business. If that were the case then I would be in agreement with this view. But the issue in the meme is the public funding for a "private" elective decision. Why should the public money fund it?? There's more of a case for having public funding to pay for my root canal because I have to have it where an abortion is completely optional. I will also note that one with the view that you can justify the killing because of the reasons listed begs the question - is the unborn human - not if they are a "person" or a "citizen". Of course the question of the humanity of the unborn has been settled long ago - our lives begin at conception. Who determines whether or not one is a person? That is subjective as skin color or ethnicity. OBJECTIVELY, we are all human and it is not justifiable to kill humans because we can do it "privately" or they are no a citizen or not a "person" as some other "person" defines the term "person"(which is self defeating). Then we come back to the meme - why should everyone else be forced to pay for it and how is it justified via our constitution?
Retro vintage lady laughing
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.
Retro vintage lady laughing
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.
Retro vintage lady laughing
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.
Retro vintage lady laughing
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.
Feedback