This Wretched Machine

Professional creative, amateur philosopher, ardent defender of the faith.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

I lost my best friend today. He brought me the gospel, shared it continuously and lived a life that led me to question mine; ultimately leading to my repentance. He was militant in his faith, humble and a king, the best of us. He ran the race, he has gained the prize.
James Haun

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@kilphil2 @PurrChoice4Life @AbortionChat You're right, let's bomb single mom's.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat Do you agree that the unborn is human, alive, and distinct, beginning at conception?

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat Organ donation analogy concerns forcing someone to save a stranger.
Abortion concerns whether someone may intentionally end the life of their dependent offspring.
My argument focuses on the humanity of the unborn, yours on bodily autonomy.
Which is the core of our disagreement

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Charleyj88 @Acts17David I saved that, lmao.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat Which right is greater?
The right to life?
Or,
The right to bodily autonomy?

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat Nobody answered my first question. Because you assert it's not a person. Why?

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat Obviously. That's not my position though. My position is that the law and philosophy appeal to facts. Otherwise it's just preferences.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat When are you allowed by science to kill a 12 year old or 35 year old human? Lawfully.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat So which is a stronger thing to base criteria of rights on?
A. Feelings, preferences, and opinions held by the majority?
B. Objective facts based on empirical evidence?

You slightly understand my position, but miss the importance that law should be based on facts foremost.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@SecretFire79 The service was really terrible though, so we need to cut him some slack

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@paleochristcon Fern!

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat How are you missing my entire point here?

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Stephendicated Loooooool. I don't.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat And how often has that led to human rights violations?

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@PWaynorth @AbortionChat You may not need to justify it to me, but the justice system needs to justify it with objective facts. Otherwise it's just an opinion and is subject to the popular opinion and preferences of the time. That's why slavery was debatable and abortion is as well. It's ridiculous.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat In cases of human rights it should. If the organism is human, alive, and distinct (it is), then the law should treat it as a person with human rights. It's an abomination of justice, much like slavery.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@PWaynorth @AbortionChat Unfortunately"personhood" doesn't nor will it ever be based on objective truth because they're subjective by nature. "Personhood" is a bad foundation on which to build human worth, and the capacity to abuse it is seen throughout recent human history.
Slavery & abortion.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@PWaynorth @AbortionChat That's my point. You can't prove or disprove personhood. It's a stupid criteria to use to justify slavery or killing the unborn. We know that both fulfill the biological definition of being alive, human, and distinct. So why is it used to debate the pro choice argument?

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@hypeforlalaland @AbortionChat Yes. He has. I own three women. One to cook, one to clean, and one to be quiet unless allowed to speak.

[This Wretched Machine @ThisWretched]

@Crazycdn2 @AbortionChat Exactly. So then the question you need to ask yourself is this; if we cannot prove or disprove personhood then why is it used as a criteria for justifying ending the life of an unborn human? We know it's a biological fact that it's human, alive, and distinct.