Search results

Abortion arguments come down to one thing. Is it a baby or a clump of cells. If it is a clump of cells, abort away. If it is a baby, it is unacceptable to kill the baby for the convenience (even if it is mental convenience) of the mother. When the physical health of the mother is in question...

Don't. Ad hominem unrelated to subject matter is never a valid argument.

A Russian BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle, captured by the Ukrainian forces in Huliaipole, Zaporizhia blast. The sign on the side "Za detey" is exactly same as on the Tochka-U rocket that killed dozens of people in Kramatorsk. You know, the one Russians absurdly claimed was fired by Ukrainians.

What does Musk mean by going to buy every autistic kiddo chicken nuggets for life. And yes, I am very familiar with the ASD.

Just a gedankenexperiment: pair of Siamese twins. One more developed, one less. One can survive if separated, one cannot. Should the more developed twin be allowed to decide to proceed with the separation procedure - is it just between him and the doctor? And obviously it is not the same thing...

I am not sure what that means. Can you decode?

Every side reacts with "slippery slope" arguments. Except we have been sliding down the leftist slippery slope for decades now.

Neville Chamberlain

What the SC rightly says is that there is no such "right". So whether it *can* be done or not should be decided by legislatures at state level.

Just because you have no "right" to do something doesn't mean it can't be done. Lots of things are done, and not everything done is done because it is a "right". But no, there is no and should not be a "right" to murder someone.

And the response is, there is no right to murder someone in private. The government has been "interfering" in decisions to murder for a long time.

No matter what privacy rights exist, if (note the "if") it's murder, it's murder. So it is not a Constitutional issue. If you murder someone, you don't get to argue that it is a private matter, Constitutionally. And if it is NOT murder, then the "right to privacy" has nothing to do with it either.

By the way, just an interesting piece of information. Lavrov's daughter is a US citizen (by birth). She is married to an Israeli. Lavrov's grandchildren are all Israeli citizens. Same thing with lots other top Russian politicians/officials. Few have children/grandchildren living in Russia.

... and yet many Jews are vehemently against abortion. Which just shows further that it is not a religious issue.

If people who object to abortion span Christian. non-Christian, agnostic and atheists, then it is not a religious issue. At all. Some Christians object to raising animals for meat. So do some non-Christians, atheists and agnostics. Is it fair to say that this is a religious issue?

Of course there are Christians who deem it murder. There are also non-Christians who deem it murder. There are, in fact, atheists who deem it murder. I don't see it as a religious issue. If it was, non-religious people would not object to it.

Let me put it this way, El Ocho. One of the commandments in Judaism/Christianity is "Thou shalt not murder". Do you think non-Christians/Jews should not object to murder, since they don't adhere to Judaism/Christianity? What about atheists?

They deem it murder. Can you show that they deem it murder because of religion? Are there any non-religious who object to abortion on the basis that it is murder?

I doubt that. Can you give any *other* example where religion defines what murder is/isn't? The key words here: "convicted" and "crimes". That is an inconsistency. If it is murder, it is murder no matter if it is rape or incest. The exceptions are political expediency.

Again, if it is murder, then no, the person has no right to murder. Has nothing to do with religion. The other anti-murder laws have nothing to do with religion either. And if it is just a clump of cells, there is no Constitutional/legal/moral issue whatsoever, it is just a medical procedure.