Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, well we tell women who bear children they cannot afford to support the same thing: mind your fertility. So let's just cut off all government support for other people's children. Pay for our own, or rely on voluntary charity.
anti choice folks are about personal responsibility. as a man if you do not want unwanted children it is your responsibility for your own birth control. sadly a great deal of men who have unwanted children are too lazy to take care of it themselves, they leave it up to the woman the bi#ch about it after the fact. watch your own sperm, you men are far from helpless.
"Alive" is established by having metabolism and growth . As such, a fetus is alive even if it isn't viable yet . There is a difference between viable and alive .
None of this addresses my point that most pro lifers oppose abortion on the basis it ends a life in their view.
What is immoral about ending a life? When I exterminate fire ants in my yard I am committing ant genocide, but not many people would say that I was immoral for doing it. Are all pro lifers Jainists or some such religion that spends all their time walking around making sure to avoid stepping on insects?
The morality comes into play with what kind of life is being ended which is where most of the debate is.
Generally we place a high value on the lives of our own species, but why should a clump of cells with no consciousness (even if it is ostensibly alive) have its right to life be given priority over a fully formed adult with an active consciousness's right to bodily autonomy?
Better yet why should ANYONE'S right to life be given priority over another person's right to bodily autonomy?
If you have a rare blood type and are in an accident and will die if I (the only person close enough that shares the blood type) refuse to give you some of my blood, should you be able to requisition my blood against my will through force to save your own life?
Am I potentially an immoral a$$ for refusing to help you? Sure! But do we really want to say that you should legally be able to force me to give you my blood?
There is such a thing as something being potentially immoral while at the same time logically needing to be legal.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 02-01-2017 at 11:37 AM..
Amazing how many people can't read. Many of those laws include viability as a criteria. Many of those laws have specific timeline based on weeks pregnant that it would be a crime. Pretending their is some sort of unified legal definition where none exists just underscores the "alternative facts" mythology.
Homeostasis is literally one of the most important classifications, it is literally the difference between being alive and not, aka viruses.
And in order to end a "life" first you have to establish it is alive. You and they, have not done that. Saying it doesn't make it so.
Are you capable of having a disagreement without being so childish ? Grow up and discuss like an adult please .
I can quote as many definitions as you. Some define alive as I wrote. What we DO know is that a fetus emerges alive . What we don't know, and what YOU do not know, is when this "being alive" takes place . At conception? At some point after conception? If after conception, please point out the stage at which a fetus moves from " not alive" to " alive" , with supporting scientific fact and not opinion. That normal fetuses emerge alive is beyond doubt , so show the precise point previous to this emergence as a living being in which the fetus is not alive .
See that is where you are wrong, the difference is the person in your example doesn't just feel they shouldn't get abortions, they feel no one should because it violates their PERSONAL beliefs.
I disagree. I've frequently said that it's a woman's choice to make, but it's a violation of the First Amendment to force any taxpayer via threat of imprisonment to fund it when it violates their religious belief.
And my 2nd point, with which you agreed, is you can't have it both ways. Either killing a fetus is homicide, or it's not.
Quote:
There are religious sects whose teachings are that women shouldn't be educated. The equivalent would be that they shouldn't pay taxes because they are being used to educate any women because it violated THEIR personal beliefs, not necessarily the girls getting educated.
Don't be surprised if the ACLU takes on such a case for certain immigrant groups in the not too distant future.
Exercising one's religion is an inalienable Constitutional right. Exact same reason a certain group isn't routinely prosecuted for making their girls/women submit to female genital mutilation. Sure the act of actually doing so is illegal in the US, but parents aren't routinely charged.
What is immoral about ending a life? When I exterminate fire ants in my yard I am committing ant genocide, but not many people would say that I was immoral for doing it. Are all pro lifers Jainists or some such religion that spends all their time walking around making sure to avoid stepping on insects?
The morality comes into play with what kind of life is being ended which is where most of the debate is.
Generally we place a high value on the lives of our own species, but why should a clump of cells with no consciousness (even if it is ostensibly alive) have its right to life be given priority over a fully formed adult with an active consciousness's right to bodily autonomy?
Better yet why should ANYONE'S right to life be given priority over another person's right to bodily autonomy?
If you have a rare blood type and are in an accident and will die if I (the only person close enough that shares the blood type) refuse to give you some of my blood, should you be able to requisition my blood against my will through force to save your own life?
Am I potentially an immoral a$$ for refusing to help you? Sure! But do we really want to say that you should legally be able to force me to give you my blood?
There is such a thing as something being potentially immoral while at the same time logically needing to be legal.
The difference is that the pregnant women almost certainly got pregnant by a voluntary act on their part , with knowledge of the possible consequences of that action, and often without taking steps that would prevent pregnancy, and then when pregnancy does occur they demand the right to end a life that is fundamentally a separate life , simply because it resides in her body by the laws of nature .
Why do we not allow this bodily autonomy right up until delivery? Why can a woman not choose to abort the child if she changes her mind when the labor pains start ?
The thing is that most all of us decide that at some point abortion is wrong . The only real difference is at what point in the pregnancy .
Exact same reason a certain group isn't routinely prosecuted for making their girls/women submit to female genital mutilation. Sure the act of actually doing so is illegal in the US, but parents aren't routinely charged.
UGH religiously encouraged mutilation of children before they are capable of consent. Another thing that pisses me off.
Who was the first f'ed up in the head person to hold a knife in one hand, a baby in the other, and think to themselves "HMM Maybe I should just chop off this bit right here, I am sure god will love that!"?
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 02-01-2017 at 11:55 AM..
anti choice folks are about personal responsibility. as a man if you do not want unwanted children it is your responsibility for your own birth control. sadly a great deal of men who have unwanted children are too lazy to take care of it themselves
The exact same thing can be said of women who know darned well they can't afford to support a child. They're too lazy to get their act together enough to be able to provide for the children they bear.
People with this limited an understanding of biology probably shouldn't have too much say in the discussion.
Don't bring science into the debate because youll quickly lose.
There's no debate in science. Human life starts at conception. A fetus is a stage of development of human beings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
