Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Kaitlan Collins presses Ramaswamy on Ohio abortion vote" video.
-
"... I voted yes today. It's not all about abortion it's about the trampling of people's rights."
You've contradicted yourself there. You voted to trample on the rights of the babies to have a life.
"Both are favorable to Ohioians because we don't need politicians in our private lives."
So politicians shouldn't make laws against, rape, murder, theft, etc., because that somehow involves the perpetrator's "private lives"?
"We refuse to listen to hypocrites."
Like yourself, who trampled on the babies' rights while claiming to not want to trample on people's rights?
"We are adults of voting age and know what's best for us regardless of your bull, Vivek."
Oh, okay. So what's "best for us" is to kill others. Okay, I've got that now.
"Supporting all ... religions,..."
Even bad ones?
"...and above all supporting laws and the US Constitution."
Have you not noticed that the U.S. Constitution says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, ..."? Abortion deprives the baby of life!
"What the Supreme Court did was wrong ..."
Roe vs. Wade? How on earth was it wrong to overturn the evil decision?
"This is what happens when leaders pack the courts."
Make bad decisions like Roe vs. Wade? Trump didn't "pack the court". He merely appointed good judges who would properly interpret the constitution instead of activist judges like the ones that invented out of thin air a right to kill babies in the womb.
"It's also not a child's right to be abused when a piss-poor parent can't raise them."
Nobody is claiming that it is a child's right to be abused. That's a strawman argument. It IS a child's right to have a life, but you're happy to deprive them of that.
"Worry about yourself and stay out of other people's lives."
Just like people shouldn't object to rape, theft, etc., because that involves other people's lives? You're proposing anarchy.
"I'm a common sense person..."
Who approves of killing babies. Sorry, but that seems very far from common sense.
"In my opinion, it's safer to get controlled weed for the younger people."
So a dangerous drug is okay if it's controlled?
"It's too risky with alley weed. You just don't know what's in it and if it will kill you."
Well, you do know that it contains a dangerous drug. That ought to be enough.
"It's no different than alcohol, as far as I'm concerned."
That's no justification at all, comparing it to another dangerous, addictive, drug.
"I was 10-years old when I saw women fight for their rights back in 1973."
Clearly too young to realise that they were fighting for the "right" to kill their babies.
"I thought it was done and over with until Trump stacked the Supreme Court."
Already addressed, and that was one of the best things he did. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong, nor does it warrant describing it as "stacked".
"The Republican party joined the abortion bandwagon after 1973."
To their eternal shame. So your point is...?
"A party of freedom also means a party free to make your own choice."
Unless you're an unborn baby, right? Why don't you allow the baby to make its own choice? What was it you said about hypocrites?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ga6589
"No worries. This measure will not allow babies to be murdered."
Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"
You just said that a bill allowing babies to be killed in the womb will not allow babies to be murdered!
"It will protect a woman's right to bodily autonomy ..."
Unless that women is an unborn baby girl, right? You're don't allow the baby to have bodily autonomy. That's called a double standard.
"...and ensure that no one can be forced to use their body, at their own risk, to keep something else alive."
Nobody except a rapist is forcing her to be pregnant. But once she is, then it is wrong to kill her baby. Her body is designed to do just that. And the risk to her is minimal, and the risk to her of killing the baby is not zero either, and the "risk" to her baby is 100%.
"It's clear in multiple state votes that forced birth is not a winning strategy for the GOP."
It's a winning strategy for the baby, and the baby is more important than any party. You don't sacrifice innocent humans for the sake of a party. Well, you shouldn't at least.
"You are free to never have an abortion, but not free to tell women what to do with their bodies."
It's not their body! It's the baby's body! You're saying that the women are free to decide what to do with someone else's body.
"Yes, it is a woman's body..."
No, the baby is not part of the woman's body. It has it's own arms, legs, blood (often of a different to to it's mother's), brain, heart, brain, and DNA.
"...pregnancy and childbirth tax every single physiological system in it."
Her body is designed to give birth to babies! You might as well argue that breathing taxes her body too!
"NO one should be forced to use their body to keep something else alive,..."
That "something else" is her baby, a living human being. And nobody should be allowed to kill an innocent human being.
"...while risking their own health, life and well-being in the process."
Walking down the street, driving, living at home, etc., etc. all involve risk. It's a part of life. Yes, it's good to avoid unnecessary risk, but not at the expense of another's life.
"Doesn't matter if that something is an embryo or your grandmother."
It does, actually. That "embryo" (I notice how you avoid acknowledging its human-ness) has no other way of surviving.
"BTW, the GOP is all about states deciding about abortion. That's why they pushed for Roe to be overturned."
Most people pushed for it to be overturned because it's murder of an innocent. Being a state's right was an argument used, but it wasn't the prime motive.
"If you don't like it, you don't have to live in those states."
And yet I'm sure that if the state made, say, rape legal, you'd object rather than simply move states.
1
-
1
-
@eugenewood721
"If everyone, including a fetus, has equal rights."
Which they clearly do. A "fetus" is a living human being. Human beings have "human rights", not "adult rights" or "born rights", but human rights.
"Then no one, including a fetus, has the right to use anyone else’s body for anything, including survival, without that person’s expressed and continued consent. "
If everyone, including an unborn baby (your attempt to hide that it is a baby is deceptive) has equal rights, then nobody, including the mother, has the right to take the baby's life.
At best, you have a clash of rights, and have to decide which one takes precedence.
But you also ignore that a parent has an obligation to nurture their children. If you found a mother or father neglecting her/his toddler, would you say that's okay, because the toddler doesn't have the right to impose on his parent? No, you (or at least sensible people) would recognise the parent's obligation to their child.
Further, in your mind, killing the baby apparently does not qualify as using the baby's body for some purpose, such as not having to be pregnant while on holiday? Because the mother never gets the baby's consent, as you subsequently acknowledge.
"Legally and constitutionally, consent for anything can be rescinded at any point."
Not always.
"For example, a person can consent to sexual activity with someone, and at any point, rescind consent from continuing."
An example doesn't prove the universality of your claim. If, for example, a person agreed to provide a service for a year, then they can't rescind that "at any point". They are obliged to fulfil the requirement.
"Abortion, on the other hand, is a medical procedure, done with the expressed consent of the pregnant person."
But without any consent—even implied—of the person being killed. And calling it "a medical procedure" is deliberately misleading. You might as well call an execution "a medical procedure". Medical procedures are about helping a person, including saving their life. To call taking a life a "medical procedure" is a distortion.
"That response is what is called - deflections, projections, attempted insults and/or whataboutisms."
His last sentence was insult. The third was perhaps too. The rest was right on point.
"Morals are subjective, at best..."
Evidence please. As I Christian, I vehemently disagree.
"Exactly zero people in the entire history of the planet, ever(including yourself), share the same exact morals across the board."
The fact that many people reject valid objective morals doesn't mean that they are always subjective.
"As such, attempting to hold others accountable for your own personal subjective morals, or attempting to live up to the subjective morals of others, is a fools errand."
His (and mine) are not personal subjective morals. They are absolutes. And that is the basis on which things like laws against murder are jusitfied—they are absolutely wrong, not just subjective opinion.
"Our society is not based on your(or anyone else’s) personal subjective morals."
In some respect it is. Such as the personal subjective moral that it's okay to kill unborn babies.
"Instead, it is based on the law, as empowered by the constitution."
You have that back to front. The laws are based on the morals. Why do we make a law against something? Because we consider it to be morally wrong. Our societies are (mostly) based on morals, and laws (and constitutions) are enacted to formalise that.
" "Can a fetus give consent”, you ask? Easy answer - no, it can not."
So your claim that consent is required is shown to be something that you don't actually believe. It's also not absolutely true. It can give consent, when it's old enough. But instead of waiting for that consent, they discard the requirement for consent.
"It also can not survive on its own without using another person’s body for survival."
Your use of "using" is an attempt to make it sound immoral (your subjective opinion?), when the point is that the mother has an obligation to her own offspring.
"Do you support equal rights? Does a fetus having more or equal rights as anyone else? Why or why not? "
In my case, 1) yes, 2) the same.
"Do you believe that a pregnant person is should be required to gestate?"
A pregnant woman should have no right to kill her baby.
"Because There are zero laws(current or proposed) that require a pregnant person to gestate."
Still carrying on about the law rather than what's right. Your argument seems like "you can't change the law, because whatever the law says is the standard". If that was the case, laws would never get changed.
"I certainly have no presented any opinions."
False. You have presented the opinion that morals are subjective, for one.
For another, you have the implied the opinion that the law, and not what's right and wrong, is the important factor.
"I am merely stating facts, based on the law as empowered by the constitution."
What about the fact that the Constitution says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, ..."?
"What is thus far indisputable legal and constitutional fact..."
Based on my previous line, I certainly DO dispute that your view is constitutional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyduffy7441
"I was commenting on what I perceived was the the misuse of a word."
Fair enough. I'm a pedant too. And yet I didn't see you making any complaint about a number of people using a medical term ("fetus") in a non-medical discussion about babies being killed, because they want to pretend that it's not a baby.
"Go read a dictionary,..."
I frequently refer to dictionaries.
But further, in what way did I say you were actually wrong? I didn't. I didn't say that you were wrong in your definition. Rather, I was giving some context as to why the person who used the word was not really that wrong either. Infanticide does happen, legally, in some place. And, as I pointed out, there is only an arbitrary distinction between abortion and infanticide. Yes, there is technically a distinction, which you pointed out, but not a practical one.
1
-
@eugenewood721
Part 1 of 3
"you may have to go back to your own comment to gain the context of responses,..."
That factor is one of the reasons why I reply in the format that I do.
"at that point you will just be talking to hear yourself speak, but perhaps that is your goal."
No, it's not.
"A fetus is an embryo and/or an unborn offspring of a mammal(including human beings) - at least based on the official definition."
Yes, the word is not restricted to humans. But the context (this conversation) is that of humans.
"You are certainly free to opine a fetus to be anything else you choose..."
I didn't do that. The definition that you provide does not contradict my statement that a fetus is a living human being.
"The constitution does not expressly refer to “human rights”, ... instead simply “rights”."
I was using a more general and common term ("human rights"); not meaning to imply that the constitution used that term.
"Your concern for how complete strangers online refer to ..., simply to complain to that complete stranger about how it makes you feel, displays a victimhood mentality."
It's not about how it makes me feel. It's about how pro-abortionists use the term to hide the fact that they are talking about babies being killed.
"...refer to something that has zero affect on your life,..."
How society degrades itself does affect my life. This particular aspect of such degradation might not, but it's all part of the whole.
"There is exactly zero laws (current or proposed) and/or constitutional language that requires a pregnant person to gestate."
I have already addressed this.
"Yes, a mother, or any parent, has the right to choose to no longer care for their child after it is born."
Yes, they have the right to give up the child. They do not have the right to neglect or harm the child. There ARE laws about that.
"Currently, there are zero laws that require anyone to bo legally responsible for providing anything to a fetus, as such, it is legally and constitutionally impossible to “neglect” a fetus."
Which is why the law needs to be changed. Again, simply citing the law as though that's the arbiter of right and wrong ignores why laws are made.
"Incorrect. As there is exactly zero laws (current or proposed) and/or constitutional language the refers to abortion as “murder” or “killing a baby”. "
And yet what I said remains true, even if the current laws don't recognise that.
"Furthermore, neither the law nor the constitution, requires a fetuses consent for anything."
Again, a shortcoming of the law.
"I am simply stating what the law is."
False. As I have pointed out, you are not just doing that. You are also making out that the law is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong.
"There is exactly zero legally binding contracts that does not include pre-agreed upon “outs” for either party, with various, if any, costs to either party for that “out”."
Costs are penalties for breaking the agreements. I don't accept that that contracts are not legally binding if there are not pre-agreed ways of getting out of it. Admittedly this may vary by jurisdiction, but I've never heard of that being a requirement for a legally-binding contract.
"...the pregnant person is not legally or constitutionally required to get the fetuses consent before aborting it."
But killing an innocent human remains wrong, regardless of what the law says. That is the point, and the one that you are avoiding/denying.
"Calling it a “medical procedure”, is using the actual legal/medical definition/terminology."
That doesn't change the fact that such a use is a distortion.
"His entire comment was deflections, projections, attempted insults and/or whataboutisms."
Repeating your claim does not make it any more true.
"The mere fact that you “disagree”, proves that morals are subjective."
No, it doesn't. I was disagreeing with your claim, not with a moral.
"As, any time there is a disagreement of “opinion”, ..."
What about a disagreement of a fact? That is, it's possible to disagree on things that are not mere subjective opinions.
"All morals are ultimately, opinions."
Again, repeating your claim does not make it any more true.
"For something to be “objective”, the same conclusion is reached no matter the observation."
No, for a moral to be objective, it has to be more than mere subjective opinion. That is, it has to come from beyond humans, i.e. from God.
"Yes, that is exactly what it means."
No, it's not. See my next point.
"As long as any number or any percentage of people disagree based on the same observation, the conclusions they respectively come to, are by definition, subjective."
So if people disagree on what 4+4 equals, then the people who thing that it equals 8 are (along with the rest) being subjective? False. It means that people who think it's anything but 8 are simply wrong. The problem is that you are ignoring one of my main themes, that all this is not simply about the law, but about what's right and what's wrong. That people can be wrong about facts doesn't make those facts subjective.
"You don’t speak for his morals."
And yet I did!
1
-
@eugenewood721
Part 2 of 3
"Simply because you read his comment, you believe you share the same morals as a complete stranger?"
In the context of which morals he cited, yes. I never claimed to have the same morals as him in every case.
"Absolutely no chance that you read in to it to too much and/or misinterpreted something he didn’t get across as clear as he wanted ..."
I'm not claiming to be infallible, if that's what you're trying to get at.
"Correction, it is “absolute” to you."
Correction: it is absolute because it comes from God. That makes it absolute for everyone, whether they recognise it or not.
"But as to society at large, your morals are subjective, based on the fact that they are not objectively held by every single person."
Again, that does not mean that they are subjective, and you are therefore just repeating yourself.
"Then are you saying that laws are based on what you believe is “absolute”?"
No, on what IS absolute.
"Because the law says the consent of fetuses before aborting them is not required."
First, I don't believe that it says any such thing. Rather, it fails to say that consent is required.
Second, I was generaling about why we have many of the laws we do. I was not saying that every single law is based on an absolute, nor that every single law gets it right.
"You are incorrect. Laws are not based on what is simply “right or wrong”. Because those are subjective opinions."
False. Some things are right or wrong regardless of opinions, just as 3+3=6 regardless of what people think it is.
"Laws are based on the constitution ..."
False. Laws have to not be inconsistent with the constitution, but are not based on it. For example, if legislators realise that some law against fraud has a loophole that allows fraud in certain narrow cases, they might legislate to change the law because they consider the fraud to be wrong. The constitution does not require them to make that change.
"Laws are also based on whether the conduct causes a violation of rights/protections of others."
Yes, because violating the rights of others is considered wrong.
"I have never met anyone with the personal subjective moral that it is okay to kill a baby."
You're defending the killing of babies, and you claim that all morals are subjective, so you're an example of what you deny exists.
"As per society and our objective laws, anyone whom kills a baby, is subject to be held accountable for various homicide related charges."
Unless the baby hasn't been born yet. And you know that.
"Our society, as per our objectives laws, do not refer to abortion as murder and/or killing a baby."
And yet, it IS a baby, and it IS killed, regardless of what the law says.
"Legally incorrect again. Our laws are based on the constitution rights and protections the constitution affords."
Already addressed above.
"...with all due respect, I am only concerned with the US on this specific issue, not other “societies”."
That doesn't change what's right and wrong.
"Our law does not expressly stated that murder is “right or wrong”. "
It doesn't have to state it for it to be the case.
"There are multiple legal/constitutional situations where a person is not held legally accountable for their killing someone, ..."
Why not? Might it be that such cases (e.g. self defence) are not considered wrong? Nothing you've said refutes my point that such laws are enacted on the basis of what is considered right or wrong.
"Incorrect, my claim that consent is required, is not about what I believe or not, it is what the law as empowered by the constitution, says."
You made a blanket statement about consent being required—you didn't qualify it as being required only where the law says it's required—then contradicted that by saying that consent is not required of a baby.
"Society is not based on my “beliefs”, it is based on the law as empowered by the constitution. And that is “absolutely” true."
Western Civilisation (which the U.S. is part of) is based on Christianity, with it's law-making God. (That law-making part is one of the reasons that Christianity founded science, because they expected that law-making God would have made laws for nature also, and they set out to discover them.) It is Christianity where Western Civilisation has, historically, got its morals from. And on the basis of those morals, made laws.
"A fetus can never give consent, because based on the definition, as a fetus is never born,"
A fetus, i.e. a living human being, will, however, be born and develop into an adult if allowed to, and be able to give consent. That it is not able to give consent at that time doesn't mean that it's incapable of giving consent. It's similar to a person raping an unconscious woman—that she is unable to give consent at that time does not excuse the rapist.
"I used the word “using” because it is the correct word grammatically, as I used it."
That is incorrect. It is a correct word grammatically, but not the correct word grammatically. That is, you could have described what happens in other ways, such as saying that a baby cannot survive without it's mother's nourishment. But you chose to word it the way you did, incorporating the word "using". My criticism stands.
"Again, quote the exact law that supports your claim ..."
I'm citing what's right and wrong, not laws. What's right and wrong trump laws.
"If both the fetus and the pregnant person have equal rights - they both have the right to end the relationship, without the consent of the other party. "
But not to kill the other party. Again, referring to killing as "ending the relationship" is deceptive.
"...the pregnant person is not violating any one’s constitutional rights by having an abortion."
Apart from the right to life. You missed that bit.
1
-
@eugenewood721
Part 3 of 3
"If a fetus has the right to live, it also has the responsibility to do so without the ability to require any other person against their will to help it."
Oh? Which law says that? On the contrary, you have switched from citing laws to citing your personal opinion.
"The law agrees with you about that. And the law does not define an abortion as “killing a baby”."
And yet that's exactly what it is.
"Instead it is based on the law."
And the law (which has to not be inconsistent with the constitution), is based on what is considered (rightly or wrongly) to be right and wrong.
"Yes or no - based only and entirely on the law(current or proposed) as empowered by the constitution."
That's asking me to answer with one hand tied behind my back, so to speak.
"Still carrying on about what you subjectively determine to be “what’s right”? "
No, about what is objectively right.
"Yes, laws can be changed, it happens all the time."
Of course. Which means that the law is not the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong.
"...every time the voters have been given a chance to vote, they have voted to either protect current abortion rights,... Seems like the vast majority of voters, when given the opportunity, disagree with your “morals” in this specific context."
I take it that your reference to the opportunity to vote is to vote on a particular law, as opposed to electing representatives? That may be so, but how often have they been given the opportunity, and what exact opportunities? Surveys, on the other hand, have shown that most people think current abortion laws should be more restrictive. Which contradicts your last sentence about the majority of voters.
"It’s not an opinion that morals are subjective, it is a fact"
That is also your subjective opinion, and contradicted by the existence of absolute morals handed down by God.
"The mere fact that we disagree about morals, by definition, makes the morals we disagree about - subjective."
No, it doesn't. That is a non-sequitur.
"Also, I “implied nothing” about the law being the “important factor”."
Nonsense. That's been the basis of almost your entire argument. You only cite laws and the constitution, not what's right and wrong.
"As far as our society is concerned, the law as empowered by the constitution is the “important factor” that society is based on."
So you now make your implication explicit! And yet you are wrong, as Western society is based on Christianity. To give just one quote in support, this is former Time journalist David Aikman:
“The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California or from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.”
"...the constitution ... does not expressly protect and afford those things to fetuses"
Still pretending that they are not humans, I see. Are not babies of citizens also citizens? There is nothing there to exclude pre-born babies, so that protection should include those babies also.
"Incorrect again. You have not “disputed my view as (sic; I said 'is') constitutional.” "
And yet I did.
"Try this if you believe my OP is not constitutional - without using morals ... as a qualifier ..."
No. I have every right to use morals as a qualifier. That's rather like asking me to say what the legal penalty is for driving over the speed limit without citing the law.
"Legally, consent for anything can be rescinded at any point."
You're repeating yourself again.
"...you have not done so based on credible, verifiable, quantitative and objective evidence."
Exodus 20:13: "You shall not murder." 'Murder' is not a reference to how the word is used in U.S. law; it's a reference to killing an innocent human being.
"Instead you have used just your subjective personal morals, opinions and feelings as a response ..."
That's false, as I have already pointed out. Repeating yourself does not make it any more true.
1
-
@alexwyatt2911
"The collective wisdom of the national and international medical communities is that access to abortion is essential healthcare."
First, I would not call supporting the killing of babies as "wisdom".
Second, you're likely citing majority opinion, ignoring that there is a lot of dissent on that.
Third, killing is clearly not health care.
"Additionally, national and international health and human rights organizations recognize access to abortion as a human right."
And yet killing an innocent human being has never been right. And again, you re over-generalising. And the position is hypocritical, as the baby is also a human, and yet they deny the baby those human rights.
"What in the world has led you to believe that your amateur bluster ..."
What "amateur bluster"? On the contrary, you are engaging in abusing as hominem, which is a logically fallacious argument. Stick the argument, not the person making it.
"...should supersede the human rights of other people..."
You have that back to front. I'm supporting the human right of being allowed to live. You're denying it.
"...as well as the wisdom, insight, and guidance of the above mentioned expert authorities?"
What makes the medical experts experts on what's right and wrong? And what about the other medical experts who disagree with you?
1
-
1
-
@alexwyatt2911
"...if access to safe abortion..."
That's an oxymoron. An abortion is, by definition, unsafe. The baby is deliberately killed.
"...wasn’t a human right (it is,..."
What on earth gives you the idea that killing a baby is a human right? That's evil.
"...the poor outcomes are enough to render abortion bans unacceptable."
What poor outcomes? Why is it unacceptable to ban the killing of babies?
"Abortion bans increase the rate of infant death,..."
Incredible! Abortion bans save the lives of infants. Abortion kills infants! That you have to twist something 180 degrees to make an argument shows that you have no argument. ("Infant: denoting something in an early stage of its development", which an unborn baby is.)
"Abortion bans increase the rate of ... maternal death, ..."
Evidence please. The rest of that sentence is just as problematic. You think that killing babies is a good way to avoid child abuse? Bizarre. And evil.
"If we care about the health, success, and wellbeing of individuals, families, and communities, then abortion bans cannot be implemented."
Only if you don't care about the health, success, and wellbeing of the babies killed.
"Of course, if the goal is to subjugate and punish girls, women, and pregnant people, ..."
Which it's not, so you're introducing a strawman.
"And I still can’t decide if it’s worse when pro-lifers are cognizant that subjugation and punishment is their real goal."
It is not their real goal. You're making things up. Again, an indication that you have not actual argument.
"Or if it’s worse that they’re ignorant of it because they have such little respect for this consequential subject matter that they’ve made zero effort to critically challenge their social conditioning and personal biases."
Sounds like you're talking about yourself there.
"And what of the people who didn’t vote for the fascist far-right legislators..."
What "fascist far-right legislators"? That you don't agree with them doesn't make them that. Rather, this sounds like name-calling, again, evidence of not having an actual argument.
1
-
@eugenewood721
"...your replies provided exactly zero to what you already stated previously..."
Huh? I don't understand that.
"...combined with a format that simply is far too annoying to engage with on social media. "
Frankly, when people don't quote what they are replying to, that often makes it hard to engage.
"To that, I ask, what is you ultimate goal here by continuing to repeat your same opinions to me?"
What is the goal of any debate? And why do you misrepresent argument as merely opinion?
"If you told me your opinion already, what do you gain personally from repeating it?"
No, I have given you a rational response. I I repeat that when you repeat your claims that I've already responded to. So what do you gain from repeating your own claims that I have addressed?
"I posted my comment to others, you chose to reply and give me your unsolicited subjective opinions, ..."
You mean like you gave them unsolicited opinions? And to take one example, how is a quote from an academic group merely a "subjective opinion"? Answer: it isn't. You're simply and falsely dismissing rational argument as subjective opinion.
"I continue to speak only about the constitution and the law, ..."
Which is part of the problem, as I have pointed out, and which you have not engaged with beyond dismissing my response.
"...you claim your opinions are not subjective, I provide definitions to prove otherwise - rinse and repeat."
I believe, rather, that I denied that my comments were mere opinions. And I don't recall you giving me any definitions.
"I have zero motivation and/or desire to debate your personal opinions."
What about debating my arguments? And answering my questions?
"...other than to point out that they are your opinions."
Other than to claim that they are opinions, ignoring that I have pointed out otherwise.
"I am more than willfully to stipulate that you have your own subjective personal opinions, morals, ethics, god(s), etc."
Yes, you "stipulate" that, but I have rejected that morals, ethics, and God are personal opinion. You keep repeating your claim that they are, but failing to show that your claim (your opinion ) is correct.
"...they are your subjective personal opinions nonetheless."
Again, you repeat yourself. They are not mere opinions, but claims based on evidence.
"Are you willing to stipulate that in this specific context, the law and the constitution that empowers it, is not based on your own subjective personal opinions, morals, ethics, god(s), etc?"
I never claimed that it was based on "subjective personal opinion, morals, ethics, god(s), etc." I claim that they are based on facts. But you keep rejecting that out of hand, by repeating your own opinions to the contrary.
"I am only willing to discuss this topic in terms of the law as empowered by the constitution."
Whilst ignoring the basis for the constitution and the law. That is, you are treating the constitution and the law as the ultimate authority, whilst I'm arguing that it's not the ultimate authority. And you refuse to address that, simply repeating your claim over and over.
All your other comments about abortion laws in the U.S. are simply you repeating your claims that I have already addressed.
"And before to answer that, ask yourself, and you sure you’re not “repeating yourself again”?"
If I did answer that, then yes, I would be repeating myself. Because I'd be answering a claim that you have repeated, and not addressed my answer. If you can repeat your claim, why shouldn't I repeat my response?
"The Bible gives instructions on abortions to determine if your wife is faithful,..."
No, it does not. Rather, it is a test that a jealous husband could get a priest to perform if the husband suspected unfaithfulness. Neither the husband nor the priest performed an abortion. Rather, the suggestion is that God might cause an abortion as a response to that test. However, there are two problems with this. First, as one commentator says (my bolding): "the rite protected women from husbands who were overly aggressive or hasty in their judgments. It offered a safe outlet for male jealousy and prevented emotional or physical abuse. It kept Israelites from visiting pagan temples. And it would have nearly always exonerated the woman in question." That is, no abortion.
The second problem is whether an abortion is even what is meant. The actual wording is unclear in its meaning, so some translators think that it's a euphemism for an abortion. But it's also translated as "your thigh fall away" and "cause your genital organs to shrink".
"...then speaks about god killing sons and first born children of an entire community, as revenge no less."
No, as punishment. And that has nothing to do with abortions.
1
-
@eugenewood721
"I will not entertain your interview format..."
But I have to entertain your format? I have to format my replies in a way that you prefer? What arrogance!
"...and continued use of your subjective personal opinions,..."
I've already answered this. Much of my response is NOT personal opinion. Why are you lying about that?
"As you are choosing to comment towards me in a manner I made clear I do not appreciate, respectfully, I will presume your comments to me to be simply you attempting to troll, ..."
GIven that I have explained why I use the style I do, for you to dismiss that and assume a bad motive is more evidence of your arrogance. And as such, your use of "respectfully" is clear incorrect. You are being quite disrespectful.
"Here is the promised response to your continued behaviors. A different response will come when your behavior changes. You are free to continue the aforementioned behaviors, but the conversation will not be able to move forward with me until then."
Will you also change your behaviour? In particular, stop repeating claims that I have already addressed?
The rest of your response was, yet again, a repeat which I have already answered and shown to be wrong. That's terrible behaviour on your part. If you don't change that behaviour, you are clearly attempting to troll. At least according to your logic.
1