Sen. Paul stopped by TSA at airport, law enforcement denies it was a detention

Only because you believe that a fetus is not a human being. I, on the other hand, cannot demonstrate that (like all other positions on what constitutes "humanity" and when it begins) and therefore have to consider that a living organism with human DNA has to be considered human (which is what most people argued in this thread).

The implication is therefore not a question of "more rights" but "In this particular instance, which right is greater?" Is it a greater limitation of someone's freedom to kill them, or to require them to put up with some discomfort for nine months? (Beyond that, they can always have the child adopted.)

You try to simplify that to a question of "more rights" because that way of looking at it, though logically erroneous, allows you the comfort of believing that your position on abortion is rational. It is not, since it is based on the unproven philosophic assumption that "humanity" does not start until birth (or at least later on during the pregnancy).

When you have something other than blind faith as a demonstration that humanity does not start until birth (or whatever point you prefer), then you can tell those who want to protect human beings from being killed when they have done no one any harm other than by "being there" that their position is "disturbing."

I would, however, consider legalizing abortion in the case of an adult child moving back home and refusing to work while spreading his "wisdom" across the Internet.

All that's clear is that you have more spare time than I do.

Good, no one wanted you to post in here anymore anyway.

So these sheep and goats they're making with implanted human genes, if you ate a lamb chop off one of them, I can send you to the chair?
Neato!

You're really reaching now. A sheep or a goat has sheep or goat DNA. Implanting a bit of foreign DNA no more means that it becomes "a living organism with human DNA" than stapling an apple to an oak makes it an apple tree.

If you have a logical, scientific demonstration (that is, after all, what you claim your positions are based on) that humanity does not begin at conception, I would like very much to see it. It would put an end to the debate once and for all. If you don't, then I find it interesting that you, of all people, are willing to base a position that involves the life and death of others on nothing other than your blind faith that your unprovable position is correct.

They've got more human DNA buzzing around in them pound-for-pound than a blastocyst has.

If it does, then every woman that has a period after un-protected sex is a serial killer.
Have fun with the logistics of enforcing that.

It's worse than saying a house is a tree because some lumber was used in the construction.

Enough with the tortured analogies and metaphors.

The days of being able to force a woman to carry a child to term are OVER. Deal with it.






....and by "deal," I don't mean "Delude yourself with the imaginary comfort of pretending that abstinence-only 'education' will reduce unwanted pregnancies." I mean "Accept reality. Pass out free condoms in the 10th grade."

Don't confuse yourself, UA, by trying to follow the flow of the conversation. Just trot out an old, worn-out saw.

Want some real-life truth? Even people with sex education and easy access to birth-control still get pregnant and are lining up in massive numbers to have the government (read: you) pay for their abortions under the threat of having the government (read: you) pay them welfare or other benefits.

Birth control fails quite often. Education fails quite often. Abstinence works every time it's tried. You don't have to like it, but those statements are true.

And relying on abstinence being "tried" is failing utterly. As in falling flat on its fucking ass.

Now what?

Nonsense.

It's when abstinence is no longer tried that it fails. Contraceptions fail repeatedly when used. Education fails repeatedly when used.

It has nothing to do with religion or the pope, either.

Explain that.

He believes in magic.

No shit, Sherlock. Does belaboring the painfully fucking obvious make you feel wise?

The point that you are transparently pretending you didn't catch is that abstinence is such a tough sell with people that relying on shaming them into never having sex, to "solve" the abortion problem, is beyond idiotic for being so abysmally disconnected from reality.

Unwanted pregnancies will and do happen, despite all your finger-wagging and sanctimonious condemnation. Preventing it entirely is a fantasy, and you might as well be honest and admit you care more about heaping guilt adults than you do about protecting the unborn.

So, accepting that a) the unwanted pregnancies WILL happen, and b) "abstinence" is a bullshit deflection attempted by people with no real interest in dealing with reality, what do you do?

So you can't force parents to behave a certain way, UA? That's interesting, because fairly often you'll hear a story about a person who left their kid in a car while went shopping. Or to the bar or some such. A lot of those stories end with the person being arrested and the child being placed in adult custody.

Heck, there are laws that govern how you treat a dog. But if it is a human baby it's OK to kill it--just as long as it is completely and utterly dependent on its mother.

If you are willing to forcibly drag people kicking and screaming to do right by their kids, I would get behind this kind of sentiment. But society doesn't have the stomach for it, so it's a bullshit tactic to even bring it up.

And you mention this to argue in favor of forcing more people to become parents? Parents with a demonstrated desire to not have kids?

Suggest an alternative.

"But herpa derpa abstinence! " WRONG!

I said an alternative, not mindless, puritanical bumper sticker rhetoric.


"But...aderrrption! " WRONG!

I said an alternative, not failing half-measures that only solve the problem in your fantasy version of reality.

"But I didn't cause the pregnancy, so it's not my problem to fix! "
WRONG!

By interfering with a perfectly viable solution, you volunteer yourself to supply an alternative. If you don't have a working solution to deal with all unwanted babies right now, then you have no business trying to stop abortion right now. When you learn to incubate babies without a human womb, and when you have a home for every single fucking one of them, then we can talk about ending abortion.

Interesting that all you can do is dodge. That is basically an admission that you, who are so vehiment in your condemnation of religious people, tacitly admit that you base life-and-death decisions on blind faith, without any scientific proof whatsoever. Of course, it isn't your life that is in jeopardy, which probably makes that easier...

I think you should have stopped right here, because here a valid argument could be made, instead of the bullshit one on whether abortion should be legal or not; whether it's moral or not. The argument should be, "I don't pay for your abortion if you want one." The Welfare bit, well, that goes to the the Village Raising the Kid bit as well as the entitlement problems, etc etc etc.

... you know what? Fuck it. My train of thought derailed and I don't fucking feel like getting it back on track.


:bick:

Evil Knievel couldn't make that leap.

WTF are you talking about?

Yeah.
Isn't my life in jeopardy when they gas dogs.
Isn't my life in jeopardy when I swat a fly.
Isn't my life in jeopardy when I zap raw chicken moist-spots with bleach-water.
What's your point?

It's not a dodge, moron, it's the fucking answer, you dull witted schmendrick.

Life began billions of years ago.

Humanity began roughly a hundred thousand years ago.

A million, if you count the higher primates that led up to what you'd recognise as humans.

It's a continuing fucking process that rolls along.

"When humanity begins", is a meaningless dopey nonsense statement as "I demand you give me scientific proof that there are exactly 54 angels on the head of a pin!".

My statement was to make you, for yourself, mentally unravel what a dumb question yours was, and to leave you with a shred of dignity.

But, no, you wouldn't let me be nice, you had to be a shit, didn't you?

Now, here's where you'll try to turn me snapping at you into "points", in your little game.

Again, you're proving my point. I'm not trying to shame them into anything. I'm explaining what works and what, quite often, fails. By the logic of the "enlightened, scientific crowd", that is merely education and that will cure all the ills of the world. Aren't we trying to evaluate the failures of the past and do better in the future rather than rely on mysticism and hocus-pocus?

Now who's the one with no interest in dealing with reality?

I love it when Diacanu is reduced to insults and dodging. It's the closest he ever comes to admitting that for all his vaunted empiricism, he can't back up his beliefs with anything even resembling logic.

See?

Does it feel good inside of your guts when you lie?
Does pride happen inside your deepest chemical works when you think you get away with it?
I'd really like to know.
I'm fascinated.

Now...

Which of these statements is untrue?
One of them kind of have to be for you to assail my position as being absent of logic.

Education means not putting all of your eggs in the "abstinence" basket. The rest of that was hollow bullshit.

Reality starts from the position that unwanted pregnancies are happening right now whether you approve or not, and then seeks a way of dealing with those pregnancies that are happening right now, whether you approve or not. It does not jerk everybody off with a bunch of useless "If you'd just behaved differently this wouldn't be a problem" That ship has fucking sailed, and insisting on it is just a way of evading what actually confronts us.

Uh huh. And why, Mr. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket", do you so adamantly, fervently, some would say zealously, attack those who advocate abstinence? Isn't it just one more "egg" in the basket?



But, continue, please. It's fun to watch.

Because they use "abstinence" as a giant fucking beach full of sand to bury their head in and pretend it's the only thing that merits any consideration.

If your presentation is not "Abstinence is the safest bet, but if you insist on having sex here are some contraceptives and instructions on how to use them.." then you are pissing in the wind. And if it is even a small part of your agenda to condemn premarital sex and make people feel guilty, you are a contemptible assbag for making the problem worse.

Can I at least condemn people for making stupid choices about how and when they exercise their sexuality?

You certainly didn't hold back when pressed on your opinion of people drinking and driving... .

Not if you want to keep the pretense of being helpful, rather than some sanctimonious dickbag who wishes everyone was as un-fuckable as he is.

But it's a free country.

Understand the distinction between things that affect you, and things you just don't like.

And don't give me any "They don't affect you unless they run you over" bullshit. Just don't. Else I'll have to cut a fool.

Just because I want to stop you from going on a murderous rampage doesn't mean I should pay for your potential victims' housing and welfare.