Is Joe Biden pro-life or pro-choice?

[Hume]

Life is “invariably damaging” to every human being, a la the law of entropy. You haven’t made your case.

Sure I have. You’re just not convinced by it.

A woman can do nothing about the threat of entropy. There is something she can do about the threats of pregnancy.

Given that we have wandered far far afield from the thread topic, I am hereby abandoning the derailment.

I should probably do the same.

Thanks Harry.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Life is “invariably damaging” to every human being, a la the law of entropy. You haven’t made your case.

Sure I have. You’re just not convinced by it.

A woman can do nothing about the threat of entropy. There is something she can do about the threats of pregnancy.

Yup, have a child and enjoy the miracle of life extending itself beyond the “threat of pregnancy.”

 

[Hume]

Hume:

HarryStotle:

Life is “invariably damaging” to every human being, a la the law of entropy. You haven’t made your case.

Sure I have. You’re just not convinced by it.

A woman can do nothing about the threat of entropy. There is something she can do about the threats of pregnancy.

Yup, have a child and enjoy the miracle of life extending itself beyond the “threat of pregnancy.”

I’ve 3.

One home sick, no sitter thus I’m home sitting. Why I’m here key-board warrior-ing

 

[TheLittleLady]

the VA gov would allow the child to die without care.

I have already provided you a link to the actual text and the current, existing laws. Infanticide is against the law in 50 states, no governor is “floating it”.

what do you call killing a newborn child

It would be infanticide. Which is against the law in the United States of America.

The practice of providing comfort care to infants delivered pre-term or with severe medical conditions is not infanticide. If it is, show me where the Church prohibits comfort care in end of life decisions. Not a blog, not an opinion, a document with authority from the Magusterium.

the gov explained that these scenarios arise in cases of children with “severe deformities.”

yes, there are deformities and medical conditions that are incompatable with life. Providing comfort care is an act of mercy.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Pregnancy and birth are almost invariably damaging to a woman. We only count it when the damage is “serious”.

This deserves another thread. I was not damaged in any way by pregnancy with my son.

A woman doesn’t owe “peeing on herself just a little when she laughs too hard” to a child

However, half of women do not lose any bladder control from pregnancy.

 

[upant]

And pro-life laws are legalized slavery.

you don’t know what slavery is if you truly believe this

Forcing a woman to carry a baby against her will enslaves and endangers her.

endangers? odds are small today, death for the baby is guaranteed? do you value life?

Self-harm isn’t illegal where I live. Are you from the US? Or is there a state law that forbids it in your state?

the state won’t take a person cutting themself into custody?

I have already provided you a link to the actual text and the current, existing laws. Infanticide is against the law in 50 states, no governor is “floating it”.

I missed the link, please repost. I posted what he said also, I would be interested in the difference.

what is the gov floating? why would he mention it? you seem to think the only ideas out there are platform ideas, this isn’t the case. state legislatures push ideas all the time, when they gain momentum they get on the platform. the statement is clear and his words are clear, the party of death is proud of their support of abortion and will push the envelope as the gov did.

The practice of providing comfort care to infants delivered pre-term or with severe medical conditions is not infanticide. If it is, show me where the Church prohibits comfort care in end of life decisions. Not a blog, not an opinion, a document with authority from the Magusterium.

why wouldn’t killing a deformed, otherwise healthy baby, not be infanticide? show me where the church allows a child to be killed because it is deformed? you are calling it end-of-life but it isn’t a normal end-of-life scenario, it is the taking of a life. this is not an end-life decision it is a decision to not start life.

the bishop’s website:

Today many of the babies diagnosed prenatally with a disability are aborted. Frightened parents, unsure of their ability to care for a child with disabilities, need to recognize that God has chosen them to be the parents of this child for a reason. Families raising a child with a disability often write about the unexpected joys and transformative effect of such child on his extended family. Even when a baby has such severe disabilities that she is likely to die before or during birth, parents can find peace by nurturing the baby until God calls her home. They also then avoid the serious physical risks of a late-term abortion.

http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/life-matters-abortion.cfm

yes, there are deformities and medical conditions that are incompatable with life. Providing comfort care is an act of mercy.

show me the church teaching on this being a reason to kill a baby? the bishops say the baby should be nurtured until “god” calls them home: not the doctor

 

[EssentialBeing]

Joe Biden along with all other successful politicians align their beliefs to what ever is most popular. In other words they express the opinion of the majority as it wins the most votes. Joe is only saying and doing what his voters may or may not want the question is which belief sways the most people.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Link is in post 88.

I will ask you again. Did I kill my husband when I instructed the medical professionals to disconnect the respirator, turn off his heart pump and pacemaker and internal defibrillator, I instructed them to provide him with comfort Care only for the many hours he lived after that?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Liberty is just the starting point. The null. The default.

That only explains the physical aspect and has nothing to do with philosophy or morality.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Just give other folks the right to make the choice for themselves too - a la “pro-choice”

Nobody has to follow that and that does contradict liberty.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Just give other folks the right to make the choice for themselves too - a la “pro-choice”

Nobody has to follow that and that does contradict liberty.

Sure it does. You inhibit the liberty of others.

By all means, be Catholic and promote your religious views. But you have no right to force it on anyone.

That is the essence of choice.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Sure it does. You inhibit the liberty of others.

That inhibits my own liberty so that’s a contradiction, therefore your premise is incorrect.

 

[Hume]

The premise is liberty.

If you exercise liberty to inhibit liberty, you’ve violated it.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That means you are violating it by telling what to do.

 

[Hume]

I’m not forcing you to do anything, Van.

Liberty is simply the null. The default. It’s where we begin, not end.

As I stated waaaaay up, it doesn’t take much IQ or time to compound additional rules from it, like “dont inhibit the liberty of others”.

Similarly, Catholic doctrine cannot be summed up in a pithy premise, as the very existence of canon lawyers attests.

The scientific and philosophical null is always “undefined” if nothing else has been previously proven concerning your experiment or argument.

Liberty is simply the moral equivalent of this.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

As I stated waaaaay up, it doesn’t take much IQ or time to compound additional rules from it, like “dont inhibit the liberty of others”.

Your premise doesn’t agree with the rules because they contradict each other that’s why it is invalid.

 

[Hume]

I got far enough in logic classes in college to know that you must have more than one to create an argument. And you must create an argument before you can ID contradiction.

I’ve only offered one, Van. That’s a problem for your insistence of contradiction.

 

[Hume]

At this point, you can only attack its soundness.

Which is fine. So if the moral equivalent of “undefined” is not “liberty”, then what is it?

 

[upant]

I will ask you again. Did I kill my husband when I instructed the medical professionals to disconnect the respirator, turn off his heart pump and pacemaker and internal defibrillator, I instructed them to provide him with comfort Care only for the many hours he lived after that?

no, but it is a different scenario. most of the disabled kids would live with standard care given any wanted child. Do they deserve to die because the parents don’t want them?

Link is in post 88.

this has nothing to do with the VA gov statement on killing severely deformed children after they are born.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

So if the moral equivalent of “undefined” is not “liberty”, then what is it?

It is nothingness itself, every action must be justified.

I got far enough in logic classes in college to know that you must have more than one to create an argument. And you must create an argument before you can ID contradiction.

I’ve only offered one, Van. That’s a problem for your insistence of contradiction.

You say that

1. You can’t inhibit someone’s liberty
2. You can inhibit someone’s liberty unless it inhibits someone else’s liberty
   and that’s a contradiction.