WinDis Polls - 1: Abortion

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

     Because everyone should be restricted from what they view as a harmless activity because some subset of the population thinks that it's horrible, eh?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

     Because everyone should be restricted from what they view as a harmless activity because some subset of the population thinks that it's horrible, eh?

A murderer may view his action as harmless, but that is not relevant to the morality and acceptability of the action.

Following your logic, all crimes should be legalized, since there will always be two competing subsets of the population, the criminals and the just.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

     Because everyone should be restricted from what they view as a harmless activity because some subset of the population thinks that it's horrible, eh?

A murderer may view his action as harmless, but that is not relevant to the morality and acceptability of the action.

Following your logic, all crimes should be legalized, since there will always be two competing subsets of the population, the criminals and the just.

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be. What you are suggesting is forcing your own Judeo-Christian set of values on people who don't subscribe to them. That's what we call theocracy in my neck of woods.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

     Because everyone should be restricted from what they view as a harmless activity because some subset of the population thinks that it's horrible, eh?

A murderer may view his action as harmless, but that is not relevant to the morality and acceptability of the action.

Following your logic, all crimes should be legalized, since there will always be two competing subsets of the population, the criminals and the just.

^^^^

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

     Because everyone should be restricted from what they view as a harmless activity because some subset of the population thinks that it's horrible, eh?

A murderer may view his action as harmless, but that is not relevant to the morality and acceptability of the action.

Following your logic, all crimes should be legalized, since there will always be two competing subsets of the population, the criminals and the just.

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be. What you are suggesting is forcing your own Judeo-Christian set of values on people who don't subscribe to them. That's what we call theocracy in my neck of woods.

No, its not besides the point. Of course a murderer would deny that his/her victim is entitled to human rights. Irrelevant.

[segwaystyle2012]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

[k-onmmunist]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

Uh oh, Godwin's law!

[segwaystyle2012]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

Uh oh, Godwin's law!

Nice to see you bring something constructive. Why not legalize all murders then?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

Yeah, the Nazis saw what they were doing as harmless; who cares that some subset of the population saw what they were doing as horrible.

[k-onmmunist]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

Uh oh, Godwin's law!

Nice to see you bring something constructive. Why not legalize all murders then?

Because murder involves killing a being with feelings. Foetuses cannot feel pain, at least not in the early stages of pregnancy.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

Uh oh, Godwin's law!

Nice to see you bring something constructive. Why not legalize all murders then?

Because murder involves killing a being with feelings. Foetuses cannot feel pain, at least not in the early stages of pregnancy.

That is a rather arbitrary definition. In fact a human being has the right to life from the moment of conception, regardless of whether he or she can feel pain.

[k-onmmunist]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

Uh oh, Godwin's law!

Nice to see you bring something constructive. Why not legalize all murders then?

Because murder involves killing a being with feelings. Foetuses cannot feel pain, at least not in the early stages of pregnancy.

That is a rather arbitrary definition. In fact a human being has the right to life from the moment of conception, regardless of whether he or she can feel pain.

Then why do we date our lives from date of birth rather than conception?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

Uh oh, Godwin's law!

Nice to see you bring something constructive. Why not legalize all murders then?

Because murder involves killing a being with feelings. Foetuses cannot feel pain, at least not in the early stages of pregnancy.

That is a rather arbitrary definition. In fact a human being has the right to life from the moment of conception, regardless of whether he or she can feel pain.

Then why do we date our lives from date of birth rather than conception?

Custom. We measure specifically from our birthday, not from the day we became human life endowed with natural rights.

[Scam of God]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

Uh oh, Godwin's law!

Nice to see you bring something constructive. Why not legalize all murders then?

Because murder involves killing a being with feelings. Foetuses cannot feel pain, at least not in the early stages of pregnancy.

That is a rather arbitrary definition. In fact a human being has the right to life from the moment of conception, regardless of whether he or she can feel pain.

Then why do we date our lives from date of birth rather than conception?

Custom. We measure specifically from our birthday, not from the day we became human life endowed with natural rights.

Once more, with feeling: there are no natural rights. There are only natural liberties. "Rights" is another word for "soul" or "identity", and neither of these concepts can be quantified, and are based entirely on superstitious, metaphysical premises that deny the reality of the physical world in favor of some Platonic Ideal.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

Uh oh, Godwin's law!

Nice to see you bring something constructive. Why not legalize all murders then?

Because murder involves killing a being with feelings. Foetuses cannot feel pain, at least not in the early stages of pregnancy.

That is a rather arbitrary definition. In fact a human being has the right to life from the moment of conception, regardless of whether he or she can feel pain.

Then why do we date our lives from date of birth rather than conception?

Custom. We measure specifically from our birthday, not from the day we became human life endowed with natural rights.

Once more, with feeling: there are no natural rights. There are only natural liberties. "Rights" is another word for "soul" or "identity", and neither of these concepts can be quantified, and are based entirely on superstitious, metaphysical premises that deny the reality of the physical world in favor of some Platonic Ideal.

Incorrect. There are natural rights, and all human beings are endowed with them by Our Creator.

[Scam of God]

PiT must think Hitler was justified too, because we can't force our anti-murder theocratic views on the Nazis.

Uh oh, Godwin's law!

Nice to see you bring something constructive. Why not legalize all murders then?

Because murder involves killing a being with feelings. Foetuses cannot feel pain, at least not in the early stages of pregnancy.

That is a rather arbitrary definition. In fact a human being has the right to life from the moment of conception, regardless of whether he or she can feel pain.

Then why do we date our lives from date of birth rather than conception?

Custom. We measure specifically from our birthday, not from the day we became human life endowed with natural rights.

Once more, with feeling: there are no natural rights. There are only natural liberties. "Rights" is another word for "soul" or "identity", and neither of these concepts can be quantified, and are based entirely on superstitious, metaphysical premises that deny the reality of the physical world in favor of some Platonic Ideal.

Incorrect. There are natural rights, and all human beings are endowed with them by Our Creator.

As I've already said, the concept of "natural rights" is based entirely on metaphysical superstition that values the immaterial realm beyond the sensitive and sensible world of the flesh.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

     Because everyone should be restricted from what they view as a harmless activity because some subset of the population thinks that it's horrible, eh?

A murderer may view his action as harmless, but that is not relevant to the morality and acceptability of the action.

Following your logic, all crimes should be legalized, since there will always be two competing subsets of the population, the criminals and the just.

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be. What you are suggesting is forcing your own Judeo-Christian set of values on people who don't subscribe to them. That's what we call theocracy in my neck of woods.

No, its not besides the point. Of course a murderer would deny that his/her victim is entitled to human rights. Irrelevant.

     Yes, because most people commit murders because they think that their victims aren't human. Couldn't be factors like greed or anger.

     Nevermind that you ignored my point that the concept of a fetus being entitled to the rights of an adult human just doesn't make sense from a secular perspective, that being why the pro-life position is theocratic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In fact a human being has the right to life from the moment of conception, regardless of whether he or she can feel pain.

I take it then that you also oppose in vitro fertilization, at least as currently done, since it involves discarding quite a few embryos along the way, as well as discarding the leftovers once a couple is satisfied that they have all the children they want (or are going to get).

[ScottM]

By now, everyone probably knows how I voted.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

     Because everyone should be restricted from what they view as a harmless activity because some subset of the population thinks that it's horrible, eh?

A murderer may view his action as harmless, but that is not relevant to the morality and acceptability of the action.

Following your logic, all crimes should be legalized, since there will always be two competing subsets of the population, the criminals and the just.

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be. What you are suggesting is forcing your own Judeo-Christian set of values on people who don't subscribe to them. That's what we call theocracy in my neck of woods.

No, its not besides the point. Of course a murderer would deny that his/her victim is entitled to human rights. Irrelevant.

     Yes, because most people commit murders because they think that their victims aren't human. Couldn't be factors like greed or anger.

     Nevermind that you ignored my point that the concept of a fetus being entitled to the rights of an adult human just doesn't make sense from a secular perspective, that being why the pro-life position is theocratic.

Would you stop with this inane and senseless "theocratic" argument? It's only making you look foolish.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

In fact a human being has the right to life from the moment of conception, regardless of whether he or she can feel pain.

I take it then that you also oppose in vitro fertilization, at least as currently done, since it involves discarding quite a few embryos along the way, as well as discarding the leftovers once a couple is satisfied that they have all the children they want (or are going to get).

I'm not a fan of that practice, no.

[Scam of God]

Yes, because most people commit murders because they think that their victims aren't human. Couldn't be factors like greed or anger.

     Nevermind that you ignored my point that the concept of a fetus being entitled to the rights of an adult human just doesn't make sense from a secular perspective, that being why the pro-life position is theocratic.

Would you stop with this inane and senseless "theocratic" argument? It's only making you look foolish.

Incorrect. There are natural rights, and all human beings are endowed with them by Our Creator.

You are projecting your religious views into the void, and, consequently, onto us. This is quite the definition of coercion.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yes, because most people commit murders because they think that their victims aren't human. Couldn't be factors like greed or anger.

     Nevermind that you ignored my point that the concept of a fetus being entitled to the rights of an adult human just doesn't make sense from a secular perspective, that being why the pro-life position is theocratic.

Would you stop with this inane and senseless "theocratic" argument? It's only making you look foolish.

Incorrect. There are natural rights, and all human beings are endowed with them by Our Creator.

You are projecting your religious views into the void, and, consequently, onto us. This is quite the definition of coercion.

All laws against murder are enforced by coercion. Sorry.

[Scam of God]

Yes, because most people commit murders because they think that their victims aren't human. Couldn't be factors like greed or anger.

     Nevermind that you ignored my point that the concept of a fetus being entitled to the rights of an adult human just doesn't make sense from a secular perspective, that being why the pro-life position is theocratic.

Would you stop with this inane and senseless "theocratic" argument? It's only making you look foolish.

Incorrect. There are natural rights, and all human beings are endowed with them by Our Creator.

You are projecting your religious views into the void, and, consequently, onto us. This is quite the definition of coercion.

All laws against murder are enforced by coercion. Sorry.

And I do indeed question whether most of the laws against murder are themselves legitimate. I certainly don't believe, as you evidently do, that one's humanity is readily defined and static throughout the entirety of one's bodily existence.