Actually I would challenge the definition chosen for “innocent” here because in other contexts it’s not the definition he would use for that word.
Because we’re not having a discussion.
I’m trying to say that in as civil a way as I can.
The fact that you have to try (this time, so you say) to be civil should tell you why I’m not interested in having a discussion with you. And this isn’t the first thread I’ve told this to you.
Of course it does. Abortion is the greatest genocide in human history.
almost every group committing a genocide does not consider its actions to be genocide. To them, it’s for some other greater good.
This discussion…has…nothing…to…do…with genocides.
Now…is the illegal who crosses over into our country acting morally or immorally? Why or why not?
Theres that “we” again.
See how comments like that dont help?
Then quit responding to my posts
Abortion is a genocide. By the millions.
Abortion is not about illegal immigration. Nor is illegal immigration a genocide (unless we decided to execute illegal immigrants.)
Your question belongs in an immigration thread. Stay on topic here.
In this case, you and I are not having a discussion. More than one person constitutes “we”. It’s appropriate as I used it.
I’m discussing a broader topic, one that is essential in order to discuss this specific topic and any topic like it.
Getting foundations correct is essential for a real conversation.
You don’t want to participate…that’s your affair.
And I’m not.
We shouldn’t be killing a quarter of our next generation year after year.
And it will take the power of law to change that – just like it did for slavery.
We had to go to war to stop the government that wanted to continue with slavery. I suspect we will have to do the same to the current government before abortion stops.
Please stop responding if you arent interested in having a discussion. Thanks. Otherwise, i would like you to repeat what you think my point is about values so that we can be on the same page. Im not interested in bickering about the meaning of “we”.
Then quit inserting yourself into our discussion about the derivation of values and making irrelevant responses to our posts. If you dont want to discuss how we derive values, then just say so and move along. This thread involves multiple viewpoints and discussions. Not everything is an argument directed at your beliefs.
Yep. How values are derived and where they come from is an important step in determining which values you agree with or disagree with.
[quote=“Bodecea, post:37, topic:120804”]
So…you would already classify this as a human life being snuffed out? /quote]
No, but I might give it a feather and see if it can fly.
No its not.
Nope you’ll just drive it underground.
1 Like
Well I was going to make an argument that a pro-lifer should really be an open borders person because it’s the same matrix that guides both types of values choices but I suspected I’d never be allowed to get that far.
But it can be shown- to be a pro-lifer but not an open borders person shows an inconsistency in one’s value decision-making process.
And yes, the reverse is true- a pro-choice person should be all about restricting immigration.
1 Like
Yep. Abortion isnt going anywhere.
It depends on what those values are based on though. Im not convinced being human means anything. I do, however, view people’s and animals actions and capabilities as the primary driver of how i value them. This is why i value laws protecting people from violence and putting violent criminals behind bars. Its also why i am for laws against animal abuse.
