>>608
"Still not buying that."
Fails for not explaining why.
"It tries to create balance by promoting that which is temporarily lower. Few feminists consider women innately superior to men, so they'll stop promoting once balance has been achieved."
Then maybe they should attempt to promote equality, rather than promoting women alone? This part of the definition is obviously sexist.
"Well, humans aren't electrons, unfortunately. Nor do they have the same margins you think they have. If some people act wrongly I want to understand why, and your explanation is sub-par."
Supposing we had the laws I want, they would have acted wrongly knowing that the laws were there in advance, knowing full well what the consequences would be. I see no issue with laying down the law in this case.
"No, it would just raise the sale of coathangers."
If the law tightened up on the criminals, and the risk of having one was too great, the number would decline.
"Well, they are giving the life in the first place, making their parenthood equal to that of other parents."
And gambling with the lives, health, and general well being of their future children. Again, neither responsible or compassionate.
"Healthy women could harbor trisonomic kids who'll die in their thirties, while fetuses of diabetic women could experience a mutation that would cancel the disease. All parents gamble with their children's lives, some just have a worse hand than the others. When is the limit for having a kid, then?"
The odds Kumori gave for her example (1/4 & 1/2) are too great for the decision to be a responsible and compassionate one in my opinion.
"It's not really my job to explain this."
If you can't explain and prove your accusations, I have no reason to pay any heed.
"Not very many, really."
This refutation fails to address the central point of my statement.
"Exactly, and your words are either inaccurate or used as blankets."
Innacurate? You are a fascist by definition. I don't know how you could say they are innacurate. You are also a sexist by definition. Thus, you are a fascist sexist. This is totally accurate, until you change your views.
"Well, there is still no good limit as to when the fetus is equal to the parents."
I think I have found a reasonable point at which the right to life of the human fetus should be recognized.
"Human existence is nothing without a brain."
Redundant. It is the proper duty of good government to defend human life. If a fetus is genetically human, and exhibits certain characteristics of life (i.e. consciousness & or feeling), it is the proper duty of good government to defend said human life.
"It's just not that special. Unfathomably complex but irrelevant."
So DNA is what made you a human, and a snake a snake, yet this is irrelevant? DNA makes humans human.
"Beg to differ."
Why is that?
"And it's my job to prevent government from doing so."
Heh. And I'll side with the government on this one. Supposing this is what they are enforcing, I'd happilly become a detective to help them enforce it. They are good laws.
"That doesn't make them equal to the parents."
It does give them a right to continue to live and develop.
"You know, I just don't feel anything when you use words like that. Like they've lost their edge."
Due to the fact that you are indeed a fascist sexist, and that they accurately represent you and what you believe, they likely don't sting. Would Hitler have disliked being referred to as a Nazi? Hmm.