Wut?

You keep repeating that the “scale of ethics” is incomparable but flip flop between “theyre not omnicient or omnipotent”… “but maybe they are”

And what does “balance” have to do with ethical behaviour without you begging the question.

“If we assume the existence of god, we have to assume a lot of other things too” and…???

Ultimately you spent a lot of time stating the cop-out argument of “its beyond us mere mortals”. To which I can fairly respond… no.

My man, raspberry jam is where it"s at. Perfect sweet/tart to PB ratio. No other spread has beaten it yet.

Living up to your name cro magnon

Del

Ah yes, still scams

Is your position that sexual abuse cant occur to an adult, that when it occurs it can and should be laughed off (what other physical abuses should be treated the same) or a third position entirely?

I dont think that word means what you think it means…

Are you trolling, or just a fool?

Hatters gonna get mad

Sure, but you have the logic backwards. Viability isnt used so that people can get an abortion even though the baby can survive, its so the physician can make the judgement to deliver a baby that can survive instead of attempting an abortion - when the mothers life is in danger.

There is no magic cut off date, where all babies are ready to deliver or will die. So basically the math goes like this: physician determines the mother will die if the baby does not come out. If they determine the baby is viable --> the baby comes out and is alive via medical procedure (not abortion). If they determine that the baby is not viable --> the baby comes out and cannot survive via medical procedure (abortion). Fyi, in case you think oh well, keep the baby in: the mom dies, the baby is not viable to survive and dies too. Thats it. No one is aborting babies that could be birthed and survive.

“Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability – be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor – as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” Colautti v. Franklin (1979)

This is a different situation than early pregnancy abortions. Different areas of focus, rights, benefits, ethics etc. Dont treat both rights as requiring the same logic to support.

It seems to me, at least, no matter what someones position is on early term terminations, late term is a slam dunk obvious answer. Leave the decision to the parents and their physicians, not lawyers and legislators.

Sorry but that’s not true… either emergency c section at around 7 months onwards or regular delivery etc. No such thing as an abortion as far as Im aware. Is this what you think a “late term abortion” is?

What 9 month old baby has less rights than a newborn? Edit: or vice versa.

Consider this.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Harm reduction? You put together a poorly worded argument and want to pretend people are misconstruing what you’re saying. Currently, effectively, most if not all lethal injections are on hold. Care to explain what “harm reduction” you’re supporting so people “dont pretend you mean what you don’t mean.”

Ah yes, life imprisonment, the greatest way to empower a murderer to kill… i guess other people in prison… who should be killed… so they wont kill each other… or…?

Crimes or convictions? See, they dont always match 1:1

Ah yes, compromise on your morals, just like a good ol’ steak vs pizza

Were the forecasts evented for him winning or losing?