You're the one saying the covid vaccine mandate is "just" because of the community benefit (while ignoring the community detriments). The community benefit of banning pop would be far greater than the covid mandate. That's your argument, not mine. How are you pro-Thing_X but then not pro-Thing_Y when Thing_Y has greater community benefit?"If you think it's okay to have vaccine mandates, why don't you also want to ban sugar water?" Fucking seriously with this shit? Covid is still killing more people in three weeks than get killed on motorcycles in a year in the US, fucking stop this.
Correct, video game developers also should not be exploited and certainly not enslaved. And if that means no video games until the situation is rectified then so be it? I don't even know why you'd *want* to buy video games that could only be made if the devs were exploited.
The religious hospital thing, the insurance thing, the inheritance thing...
The 13th and 14th amendments are significantly longer than one sentence, and that's not including the reams of paper worth of supporting laws
A) it was still an argument being made
B) you end with the best argument because it's the last one before deliberations begin
C) 4 justices still voted against it
Okay, so how do I prove "the government should not be allowed to steal your redundant organs" as the correct moral stance, Mr Philosophy? How is it even *possible* to find a correct morality?
For that matter, you can't find an actual *flaw* with this morality. You just talk around it without ever engaging like the moral coward you are
Anybody can support a child. Groups of people can support a child. Fucking hell, we have systems in place for when the original parent can't or won't support a child. You cannot do that with pregnancy. (Yet)
The same place where withholding a compatable kidney kills a person on dialysis, moron. Why does a fetus have the right to another person's body for 9 months? The right to steal resources and permanently alter that body? The right to put that body in mortal peril? And why doesn't literally anybody else have the same right to somebody else's body? Why is a fetus a special exception, what gives it that right over a full blooded human person?
What is your moral justification for that?
Correct, I do not respect their stance. And why should I, when their stance is "it was part of God's plan that the 10 year old was raped and impregnated, so we have to force her to have the rapist's child until it brings her to the brink of death"?
Damn, that a good comback to the "a significant number of people consider rape babies a punishment from god that children have to live with" argument. Especially when the GOP has made dozens of laws to that effect. Do you actually care about that or do you just want to ***** about Democrats some more?
And what right would that be? Does that right include using somebody else's body for survival without consent? Does everybody have that right?
Hey, if you can save 5 lives by murdering 1 person with healthy organs, is it morally right to do so?
You're saying just the concept of prisoners working is immoral.
If marriage wasn't officially recognized, you'd have none of that.
The part that makes inequality unlawful is one sentence of the 14th amendment. The 13th amendment is one sentence basically if you don't include the standard other sentence about Congress having the power to enforce it that they all have.
A) Which is why it won't get overturned
B) You don't end with the best argument and I think you're confusing last argument with closing arguments
C) Because the quiet part was said loud and the loud part quiet
You prove how you stance is more ethical by showing how the consequences of your stance is better vs their stance (basically a moral cost-benefit analysis). You just listed a bunch of bad stuff, which the other side can do just the same. I agree with your points but they also don't prove your stance is morally better either.
We don't have a system in place to support children if you just allow parents give up a kid whenever they want, there is a max age for adoptive services.
Again, you not proving in any way that you're right. You're just listing things in question form now. I thought you're above this low level discussion that goes nowhere.
You can't see where another person is coming from and disagree with them and still respect them? And someone said I needed empathy here...
Someone has to try to even out all the lopsided shitting on republicans.
Any system without safeguards will systematically ingrain any prejudices.I'm not. I'm saying Capitalism greatly helps to systemically engrain it.
Being born is not a human right onto itself. It's the human right of the one pregnant to have the child if they so choose, it's not the human right of a child to be born. If it were we'd all be guilty for not constantly trying to procreate. Abortion is a basic human right because women suffer untold amounts more without it. That's your evidence right there as well. The only thing abortion goes against is religious beliefs. But the fact that you equate the right to abortion to morals says enough.
What official human right book are you pulling these human rights from? Everyone emotionally knows killing a fetus is wrong, why do you think you have such a different reaction to a death scene when a pregnant woman is killed vs a non-pregnant woman. Why is doing a "wrong" a basic human right? Because you said so? Just because there's more suffering (which no one has proved) doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Like Mysterious said above, is then killing a person to save 5 other people a basic human right because that causes less suffering?
And I couldn't care less about religious beliefs, I've never been to church in my life outside of being apart of the occasional mass during a funeral. If you're religious or not that scene of a pregnant woman getting killed hits you harder because we all know it's different.
As the 4th and final argument and not the main argument.But you said the argument was there in Obergefell. Now you're.... giving reasons why it's not there?
Firstly, it's the GOP that's trying its hardest to remove discrimination/criminal protections from Trans people. It's GOP policy that makes it as hard as possible for trans people to access lifesaving medication. So it's GOP policy that leads to more than bathroom and sports stuff; it's GOP policy that allows prejudicial hirings and firings, and opens the door for violent abuse, that exacerbates medical conditions.
Secondly, the GOP also hikes business rates, rent, mortgage payments etc, all while suppressing wages. So no, even if you resort to generic economic arguments, they're still not "better off" under the Republicans. Nobody is, except the rich.
Not "a bit badder". A fucking helluva lot badder.
But no, neither are good guys, which is why I didn't say they were.
That just proves you don't get it, calling either party a fucking helluva lot badder means their game has worked wonders on you.
But when the law has to be immoral because if allowed it's immoral and if not allowed it's immoral, then what is to be done? Maybe, you know, do what I said above?Immoral laws are not good laws.
I've never really said which is the morally better stance because I honestly don't really care that much to think about it much (and do the proof required) because that would be missing the forest for the trees. You give both sides a piece of the "win" and both are content enough, there is mutual respect, and whatever the next issue is where there is a rift in morality, you have fostered a better environment to work that out because polarization is bad and causes more harm in the long run than if either side wins abortion. It's the tagline from Alien vs Predator, Whoever Wins...We Lose.