White House forbids CDC from using 7 words, including ‘transgender’ and ‘diversity’

Answer the ****ing question.

Why do you want to end social safety nets for people if you would force them to bear the child of a rapist.

 

First of all you’re making this entirely personal. I’m not sure why, since you don’t know a thing about me, or how I care for children once they have been born. In fact, I’ve been a therapudic foster father for more than 10 years, providing support and care for abused, and medically complex children. You can stop telling me I don’t care about children, because you simply don’t know me from Adam.

Second, you haven’t answered my question. Does the state have a compelling interest to protect the life of a woman who has been raped by committing her to an institution? Once again, are you against involuntary commitment? Is it inhumane and unethical to attempt to force a woman who has been raped to choose life?

 

What do you mean "more studies of gun violence" ? They CANNOT study as there is a rule that says they cannot use CDC funding for that

That and the effects of marajuana

Banning any words by the government is very bad !

 

I answered your question. You have yet to prove personhood when it comes to a fetus so you're constructing a false argument.

I am glad you're a foster parent. So am I.

I am sad you endorse a stance that aligns itself with an ideology that would leave people behind for purely punitive reasons.

Do you believe a woman who is impregnated through rape should have to birth the child?

 

Would you agree that the world would be a better place if this person, and others like her, were killed in the womb?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/02/i-was-conceived-by-rape

The question you’re asking is at an ethical fringe. It is in the penumbra of an exception to a policy that includes more fetuses than those conceived through violence. It should not the thing that controls the entire policy.

So you can keep asking me if a woman who is raped should be forced to carry a child and it will never be a question I can answer as a hypothetical. Every situation is unique. The other aspect of your argument is that it’s entirely emotional. What’s the actual harm in a woman who bears the child of rape to term? It’s simply the fact that the child represents a reminder of the rape, right? Killing the child doesn’t take away the rape, though does it? It doesn’t undo the rape. The woman must still cope with the trauma of the rape, right? So how is killing the fetus any different at all from killing the woman? Wouldn’t it be more humane to kill her so she doesn’t have to cope with any trauma? Why just shield her from the trauma of a fetus, but not the trauma of life? Do you see how slippery your slope is?

 

I agree with you, both about the word fetus, and about the rest of the words being virtue signaling leftie buzzwords.

"Vulnerable" is probably the worst. Are they vulnerable because they are old? Then say old. Are they vulnerable because they are poor? Then say poor. And "entitlement" is just a pretty way of saying welfare -- like calling the garbage man the "trash collector", or calling illegals "undocumented". Maybe Trump is tired of the feel-good bullsh*t and wants the poor to be called poor, welfare to be called welfare (and garbage men to be called garbage men, and illegals called illegals, lol.)

Interpretation, however, is open to bias.

 

Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that a fetus is equal to the mother. It is not. The fetus is not a person. The mother is however a person.

As for babies conceived through rape, you can't live in a modern, decent, ethical society and advise that women have to carry a rapists child to term.

What's the actual harm? If you can't see the actual harm in forcing a woman tocarry a rapists baby to term then we have nothing further to discuss, and your ideology is exactly as I described it earlier.

 

That is fair.

 

Someone doesn’t know how to have a epistemological argument. If you can’t support your argument then you’re absolutely right. We have nothing to discuss. I can’t discuss your position if you refuse to make clear your reasoning for that position. Tautologies are not arguments. Either you can support your claim or you can’t. Which is it?

I’m challenging you to support your claim that forcing the woman to carry a child of rape to term causes a measurable amount of harm that must be avoided by terminating the child. I’ll even accept an argument that there exists harm that could be avoided by terminating the child. Whether I “see it” or not is not in evidence. Your argument should not be dependent on whether or not I see harm taking place.

I have asserted that the rape is the cause and sole source of the harm, not the child produced by the rape. Now you should support your claim by outlining how the child itself creates additional conditions of harm that must be avoided in order for the mother to cope with the trauma caused by the rape.

Let’s say a crack whore breaks into your house, murders your wife, and in the process of her escape leaves her newborn child behind. The newborn is not self aware, cannot make its own decisions, and is completely helpless. Can you murder the kid to avoid the hardship of caring for the child until someone is able to remove it from your care? Of course not, but then you’ll apply your personhood standard to the newborn, right? So we’ll have to define what personhood is. Before we can do that though, you have to be more clear on my questions to you about self awareness.

 

1. Decades of economic hardship.

2. Permanent and irreversible changes to their body.

3. Permanent and irreversible servitude to another human being that was both unwanted and unneeded.

4. Permanent and irreversible contact with a rapist, with repeat trauma, due to states allowing rapists access to the child.

5. Permanent and irreversible social stigma.

6. Undue burden on the justice, and welfare systems - unless of course you want to cut their welfare.

And yes, all of the above is enough to terminate a pregnancy.

For example, contracts are void if signed under duress. Or intoxication. In this case, someone broke the law and raped someone. Then you're saying this person has to endure a lifetime of dealing with this rapist and an offspring conceived through an act of hatred.

There absolutely is irreparable harm done by forcing someone to carry to term a rapist's child.

There is no argument to be had. None. This is odious disgusting and grotesque and can never, ever be allowed to become law.

Your assertion of innocence of the child is odious rhetoric assuming entirely too much to be facts when it is not accepted fact that a fetus meets those requirements.

 

I have given you your answer

You only care about one human life but there are two lives involved

 

No, you have not answered. There is also the cruel and unusual punishment clause, so your argment is not only illogical it is unconstitutional.

And that's the ballgame.

 

Okay, new rule: Only those who were never a fetus get to say that fetuses are not human beings. If you were ever a fetus at some point in your life, you don't get to say.

 

Some have killed the host. The future mother.

 

At what stage is a foetus a fully functioning human being? Does it have the same rights as a newborn even? What is it's legal status? Can it vote?

 

Not only that but a fair number have "killed" a sibling - google "disappearing twin"

 

The old standard was "quickening" at that point the developing baby could be felt to move in the womb and enjoyed greater protections as a developing life. Funny thing, after careful consideration and much advancement, we are back where we started, at about halfway through the pregnancy, right about when movement can be felt, is right about when most people think abortions should occur only for a darn good reason.

So, first half of the pregnancy, it's up to the mom, but come the second half of gestation, the reasons must be darn good ones, and more than just the mother is going to make the decision as the rights of the developing baby need to be considered as well.

 

Your last paragraph pretty much proves you have no concept of what the issues are.

Plus, there isn't any question about personhood in terms of this discussion.

 

All you are doing is attempting to impose your political correctness by demanding different words as well as demanding definitions for those words.

That doesn't accomplish anything, I'm sure you are aware.

btw: demanding that everyone substituted your terminology doesn't change anything.

 

Please explain.

Do you think there is no other basis for decision making than science - thus making "science based" superfluous?

I doubt that.

 

Another one who has no clue what a reputable news organization is.

 

Don't compare me to you and/or put me in the same category as you, please.

 

In situations where the physical life of the mother is threatened abortion can be excused

The mother has a right to life also if that is her choice

 

No, what I mean is that people can overuse a term to the point where it becomes obnoxious, or they can use a term as "filler" that doesn't actually mean anything. "Science based" sounds suspiciously like someone is ************. If it's based on real science, you give the facts and data, you don't say, "SCIENCE!" If you have no facts or data, but you can say, "It's science!", then you have a new ************ term in your arsenal.

 

Since when is "fully functioning" a requirement for respect? Are disabled people not allowed the same rights as able-bodied people? What's the legal status of someone in a coma? Is s/he allowed to vote? Is someone with microcephaly "less than human"? There are plenty of people in this country in the same situation as a fetus in the womb, but we don't kill them with impunity.