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.
Simplistic, sophomoric logic. Elimination the faucet of funding for PPH does eliminate, much less force women to not end a life. The progressive could just provide the funding out of the depth of their love, or the brutalized women could access go fund me.
Of course, in your scenario of ‘force’ an elimination of public funding for death-mills could see the funds be redirected toward private orphanages with religious education as the foundation.
Ultimately, forcing a large segment of the public to pay for something they disagree with, many find morally offensive is the ultimate totalitarianism.
My point is just that if you force the women to take the kids the term, then you have to realistically accept elevated social costs of raising said kids. And conservatives seek to hate paying for those kinds of things. So the question is: just how far does your support of the children go?
Which side of the mother's abdominal wall does determine UNDER THE LAW whether a child is a human being. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law.
As for the scientific determination of when a fertilized egg becomes a human, I don't believe that science has weighed in definitively on what makes a human a human. But we have some guidelines, because we have ways in which we determine if someone is alive or not. When someone is in a car wreck, and they have no brain activity, and a machine is required to breathe for them, we recognize that that person no longer has meaningful life. We have scientific thresholds of what level of brain activity is required for a person to think, to communicate, to live. A fertilized egg doesn't have a brain. Brain development is something that doctors monitor during a pregnancy. And that is one of the ways we determine viability.
The law isn't morally determinant. "The law" has at various times defined certain people as something less than human. We're having a discussion here about what is moral and what is not. What five justices on the Supreme Court at a particular time also is not determinant of what is right and what is wrong.
Ah, so it's brain activity that renders an unborn child human? So, you're asserting that when there is an ability to think and communicate, the fertilized egg becomes a child and thus is deserving of legal protection? Am I misstating your position or are you arguing that he/she has become a person at that point, but the mother may still abort?
The law isn't morally determinant. "The law" has at various times defined certain people as something less than human. We're having a discussion here about what is moral and what is not. What five justices on the Supreme Court at a particular time also is not determinant of what is right and what is wrong.
Ah, so it's brain activity that renders an unborn child human? So, you're asserting that when there is an ability to think and communicate, the fertilized egg becomes a child and thus is deserving of legal protection? Am I misstating your position or are you arguing that he/she has become a person at that point, but the mother may still abort?
So what if the law isn't morally determinant. The law is the law. Your morality is yours.
I answered your question. I didn't assert anything regarding legal protection.
My argument is that every pregnancy is different, every woman's situation is different, and that women are intelligent, responsible and moral. They are 100% entitled to consider the consequences and risks they personally face because of an unwanted pregnancy. They are 100% entitled to consult with their doctor, and with whomever else they wish to consult. They are 100% entitled to make the decision they feel is best for themselves.
And fertilized eggs never have the ability to think or to communicate. You have to get way, way, way beyond that point of development.
Finally, who are all these doctors you are all so worried about, that are salivating to put viable babies to death? You all really think that there are doctors that will do this, so name a few.
So what if the law isn't morally determinant. The law is the law. Your morality is yours.
I answered your question. I didn't assert anything regarding legal protection.
My argument is that every pregnancy is different, every woman's situation is different, and that women are intelligent, responsible and moral. They are 100% entitled to consider the consequences and risks they personally face because of an unwanted pregnancy. They are 100% entitled to consult with their doctor, and with whomever else they wish to consult. They are 100% entitled to make the decision they feel is best for themselves.
And fertilized eggs never have the ability to think or to communicate. You have to get way, way, way beyond that point of development.
Finally, who are all these doctors you are all so worried about, that are salivating to put viable babies to death? You all really think that there are doctors that will do this, so name a few.
You're making moral arguments throughout this thread and then, when confronted with problems in your logic, retreat to saying that the law is the law and that I should accept that rather than making moral arguments about this issue. Spiffy.
Every teenage homosexual girl is intelligent, responsible and moral. Therefore, the state should not prohibit them from going through conversion therapy if they wish. Agreed? Also, the state shall not, through any of its programs, be they Medicare or Medicaid or through laws/statutes, restrict which doctors they may see and which they may not, and which procedures they may get and which they may not. Agreed?
Now, for those not ideologically bound to making absurd contortions to justify their political stances, they recognize that women are no different than men. There are many who are irresponsible, who use abortion as a form of birth control, women who aren't particularly intelligent and who don't behave in moral ways much of the time. Welcome to the human race. You're bound to make the absurd contention to the contrary to justify a laissez-faire system regarding abortion. It's like the fairy tale land constructed by libertarians when they imagine we can have no state regulation of the economy because people will just behave rationally and morally without anyone policing them whatsoever. In other words, the sort of conception of reality that a 5-year old may have.
I made no statement about docs whatsoever. However, docs do indeed like and want business. If you think otherwise, you are also entirely naive on that count.
My point is just that if you force the women to take the kids the term, then you have to realistically accept elevated social costs of raising said kids. And conservatives seek to hate paying for those kinds of things. So the question is: just how far does your support of the children go?
What's your response to someone like me who does support those safety net programs and opposes nearly every war and euthanasia and most every kind of killing?
I am not disagreeing with myself. You are disagreeing with me, and your understanding of viability seems to be at odds with the general understanding of the word.
No.
You and the Democrats supporting these horrific bills want to define viability to fit your agenda.
Societal costs are different than appropriated government costs. Which clearly you do not understand that society and government are separate. It is one of the keynote differences between the conservative and progressive mindset.
There is no coercion for women to have babies. Her body, her choice and her responsibility. That responsibility of course includes having the father pay his portion of the cost. Whatever form ‘having the father pay...’ takes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
My point is just that if you force the women to take the kids the term, then you have to realistically accept elevated social costs of raising said kids. And conservatives seek to hate paying for those kinds of things. So the question is: just how far does your support of the children go?
Societal costs are different than appropriated government costs. Which clearly you do not understand that society and government are separate. It is one of the keynote differences between the conservative and progressive mindset.
There is no coercion for women to have babies. Her body, her choice and her responsibility. That responsibility of course includes having the father pay his portion of the cost. Whatever form ‘having the father pay...’ takes.
Not everyone has the ability to contact the father.
As in taking charge of your own personal finances.
And your reproductive organs.
No one is forcing anyone to get pregnant.
So you are saying women can practice safe sex and avoid getting pregnant? And If she refuses to use contraception and gets pregnant as a result, that's her fault, and her responsibility?
Not everyone has easy access to contraception, nor does everyone have a good enough sex education class to know how to use it or where to obtain it. But let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that everyone had access to free contraception and knew how to use it correctly.
Even then, no contraception is 100 percent effective. Presumably, you oppose abortions even in cases where contraception fails (and it does sometimes fail, even when used perfectly). If that's true, you're saying that, by merely choosing to have sex — with or without a condom — a woman becomes responsible for having a child. And that's a belief that has everything to do with judging a woman's behavior, and nothing to do with the value of life.
It's what we would do if a thirteen-year-old were raped.
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.
