Pro Choice or Pro Life (Survey)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That has nothing to do with vaccination. If you think vaccines work get vaccinated. I think they work in most cases but I'm not convinced the Covid vaccine does much good and they are finding out more about the damage it can do all the time.

I'm sure it's all true.

 

[Secret Chief]

I'd prefer persuasion

Good luck with that then.

 

[KW]

No, but catholic hospitals get the choice to kill the mother.

Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia

This is one of the reasons I'm pro-choice.
Banning abortion doesn't stop abortions; it just stops safe abortions.[/QUOTE]

No one killed the mother.

Choosing to kill is much different than failing to save.

One is intentionally evil, the other is a terrible tragedy.

 

[Secret Chief]

I guess my point is, is there a possibility for a compromise?
Nobody gets exactly what they want but terms acceptable to a majority can be agreed on?

Yes, for instance I think there's a reasonable compromise in the UK. The majority agree on a system which prevents backstreet abortions and doesn't attribute personhood to a zygote.

 

[KW]

So I have convinced you that vaccine mandates are a good thing™ and should become law?

No. Vaccines can be dangerous. An individual can make that choice.

No one should be able to intentionally kill the innocent.

 

[Altfish]

Good luck with that then.

Yeah, I was being optimistic

 

[Secret Chief]

It is relevant, because had you been killed at that point you wouldn't be here advocating for the death of others.

That would be a true release from suffering.

I don't consider that scenario to be of an "I" which is "killed." Thanks for your concern, but it's misplaced. I'm not advocating the "death of others" either.

 

[KW]

That would be a true release from suffering.

Most would not agree. My assumption is that you will continue living as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Vaccines can be dangerous. An individual can make that choice.

No one should be able to intentionally kill the innocent.

Really? Do you have any recent examples. In the distant past it was probably the case. But now vaccines have to jump through quite a few hoops before they are approved. And the Covid vaccines did do that. The reason they were able to do so so quickly was because there was no lack of funding. Usually one has to do a step, beg for funding, do another step, beg for funding again. With this one there was even a little overlap in testing. When some of the tests got to a certain point and there was no immediate problem they were able to start the next step while the previous one was still being completed. They were all completed by the time of approval. To claim that the Covid vaccines are dangerous is a merely ignorant superstitious belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Vaccines can be dangerous. An individual can make that choice.

No one should be able to intentionally kill the innocent.

You think fetuses are innocent? I thought you were Catholic.

 

[KW]

You think fetuses are innocent? I thought you were Catholic.

100% innocent.

You think they are guilty?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is relevant, because had you been killed at that point you wouldn't be here advocating for the death of others.

Sorry but what???? No one is advocating for the killing of others. You are applying personhood too early.

 

[Secret Chief]

Most would not agree.

It was rather tongue-in-cheek. A 4 cell entity is not capable of experiencing suffering. (Please don't say it is).

 

[Secret Chief]

Sorry but what???? No one is advocating for the killing of others. You are applying personhood to early.

Hang on, the anti-terrorism police are knocking at my front door.

 

[Subduction Zone]

100% innocent.

You think they are guilty?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hang on, the anti-terrorism police are knocking at my front door.

Ooh! Had to add an "o" to my post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

100% innocent.

You think they are guilty?

I certainly don't think that fetuses have Original Sin, but I kind of expected that you would.

 

[KW]

That would be a true release from suffering.

I don't consider that scenario to be of an "I" which is "killed." Thanks for your concern, but it's misplaced. I'm not advocating the "death of others" either.

Of course you would have been killed. You were living, then you were dead.

You would be dead now.

You are advocating the death of others.

 

[Secret Chief]

Of course you would have been killed. You were living, then you were dead.

You would be dead now.

You are advocating the death of others.

Personhood is not something I ascribe to a grouping of 4 cells. Any 4 cells, any where, any time. What was dead/killed was just 4 cells, not a "me." As for advocating the death of others, I am not. 4 cells is not an "other."

 

[KW]

Personhood is not something I ascribe to a grouping of 4 cells. Any 4 cells, any where, any time. What was dead/killed was just 4 cells, not a "me." As for advocating the death of others, I am not. 4 cells is not an "other."

Ascribe what you want. That was the beginning of your life. You existed. Your DNA was the same as it is today.