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.
4.) The unborn human's life trumps the all other mothers rights when it isn't an clear cut case of her life versus the babies. What rights are you speaking of? I've said, when its life-threatening by uniamous doctors opinion then I will agree the mother wins the tiebreaker and abortion is acceptable.
Spoken like a total amateur. First off, there is no medical definition of "clear cut." That's some political BS you're parroting. Second, what should they do in the event of an emergency? Should they gather 10 doctors and vote on the situation? Maybe get 30 doctors to vote? While the woman is in a medical emergency? Your made-up rules don't apply in the real world.
You will hear nothing but talking points on this subject. Let's just break this down as a libertarian, which is the much more enlightened point of view than the typical knuckle-draggers from both sides weighing in.
A baby even inside a womb is a human being. It is growing day-after-day like a newborn grows hair for the first time, or a toddler teething.
It is indisputable that life starts at conception, viability is a false argument used to justify abortion and a violation of the baby's civil rights.
The baby has a right that supersedes the mothers vanity rights,unless we have indisputable evidence (from a doctor) that the mother would undoubtedly die from giving birth and/or continuing the pregnancy to term.
(I would suggest any mother who cherishes their own life over an unborn child is a waste of human life, the most selfish coward to share the same air as us.)
So when you distill it down, it is a constitutional argument. Does a baby have a right to life as everyone else?
Simply on its face, liberals believe they are not afford the same levels of civility and protections, similar to blacks of yesteryear.
Now, when they use the classic viability argument, it is such a funny and easy one to obliterate.
Simply ask them, if they take a new born, or 1 year old or 2 year old child and turn him loose to the wilderness or wild, would they be consider viable?
Could they find food, fight infection, weather all ailments, avoid predators? Of course not, they are as fragile as an unborn 1st or 2nd trimester child that is happy hunting for abortion doctors.
The point is, everything needs nourished to an independent status before you are 100% viable without an external human hand interceding.
This is just basic logic, common sense and critical-thinking.
The bottom line is, viability is a fake argument and without merit.
Additionally, liberals and those who are pro-abortion or choice are against protecting the rights of everyone regardless of AGE.
Abortion is a primal, sub-human form of governance. It is akin to the stronger person physically ruling, if I can beat you up then I am right, or I have the biggest gun and I make the rules mentality.
Think, if the child could actually make a case for itself even if the mother has an amazingly compelling argument. Would he say yes, she is too young to have a kid, or she is too poor to have a kid, I agree, please severe my spine and throw me in a trashcan.
Next?
That's a long rant to disguise what you really think:
The bold phrase gave you away. Women rarely, if ever, have abortions because of "vanity." They have them because they were raped. Because birth control failed. Because they're afraid they can't raise a child. Because they can't afford a child. And for a hundred other painful, agonizing reasons that men like you could never begin to understand, and prefer to ignore and dismiss in order to demean and control women.
Your argument failed from that point on. You're not an intelligent, logical libertarian. You're just another garden-variety misogynist.
That's a long rant to disguise what you really think:
The bold phrase gave you away. Women rarely, if ever, have abortions because of "vanity." They have them because they were raped. Because birth control failed. Because they're afraid they can't raise a child. Because they can't afford a child. And for a hundred other painful, agonizing reasons that men like you could never begin to understand, and prefer to ignore and dismiss in order to demean and control women.
Your argument failed from that point on. You're not an intelligent, logical libertarian. You're just another garden-variety misogynist.
Next?
Exactly!! Couple that with "a woman should sacrifice her own life to give birth to a child, otherwise she's not fit to breathe the same air as us", and you have the epitome of misogyny.
What are we? Salmon?
1.) arbitrary beginning point. Without interjection, the baby would be born due to the fertilization at conception. That is the obvious and indisputable origin of life.
2.) I could replicate the results over and over with any animal, whether it be human or other animal. The only hand that would change the outcome biological flaws in the mother or child, which are natural and happen with and without medical intervention.
3.) If there is no other reason than being at eminent risk of dying (from mother perspective) then all other reasoning for killing your own child would fall under the genre of vanity.
(Let me guess you believe in mercy killings, er excuse me, abortions for known Down's syndrome unborn babies?)
4.) The unborn human's life trumps the all other mothers rights when it isn't an clear cut case of her life versus the babies. What rights are you speaking of? I've said, when its life-threatening by uniamous doctors opinion then I will agree the mother wins the tiebreaker and abortion is acceptable.
5.) it is a form of governance. The right to life whether born or unborn is enforced by the government. I don't understand why you can't get this I explained it once. Without the obvious law that murder is illegal, then anyone who was able to kill you would be able to just take your life whenever they chose because they are able to. The reason you walk down the streets with comfort is because you know not only is it morally right to let people be free and live, the government has police which will catch and detain people who attempt to take that right/freedom from you whether they fail or not.
This is basic natural law.
I stand by my comments, they are the truth and most of the women I know would follow the same beliefs.
1.) All beginning points are arbitrary. What about the sperm and egg? And not all fertilized eggs live to be live babies.
2.) "Biological flaws", eh? A woman who suffers a miscarriage is "flawed". Nice outlook.
3.) I don't get the "vanity" issue, and I don't want you to explain it to me.
4.) One person's rights don't trump another's, even if you assume that a fetus at any stage of gestation is a "person".
You will hear nothing but talking points on this subject. Let's just break this down as a libertarian, which is the much more enlightened point of view than the typical knuckle-draggers from both sides weighing in.
A baby even inside a womb is a human being. It is growing day-after-day like a newborn grows hair for the first time, or a toddler teething.
It is indisputable that life starts at conception, viability is a false argument used to justify abortion and a violation of the baby's civil rights.
The baby has a right that supersedes the mothers vanity rights, unless we have indisputable evidence (from a doctor) that the mother would undoubtedly die from giving birth and/or continuing the pregnancy to term.
(I would suggest any mother who cherishes their own life over an unborn child is a waste of human life, the most selfish coward to share the same air as us.)
So when you distill it down, it is a constitutional argument. Does a baby have a right to life as everyone else?
Simply on its face, liberals believe they are not afford the same levels of civility and protections, similar to blacks of yesteryear.
Now, when they use the classic viability argument, it is such a funny and easy one to obliterate.
Simply ask them, if they take a new born, or 1 year old or 2 year old child and turn him loose to the wilderness or wild, would they be consider viable?
Could they find food, fight infection, weather all ailments, avoid predators? Of course not, they are as fragile as an unborn 1st or 2nd trimester child that is happy hunting for abortion doctors.
The point is, everything needs nourished to an independent status before you are 100% viable without an external human hand interceding.
This is just basic logic, common sense and critical-thinking.
The bottom line is, viability is a fake argument and without merit.
Additionally, liberals and those who are pro-abortion or choice are against protecting the rights of everyone regardless of AGE.
Abortion is a primal, sub-human form of governance. It is akin to the stronger person physically ruling, if I can beat you up then I am right, or I have the biggest gun and I make the rules mentality.
Think, if the child could actually make a case for itself even if the mother has an amazingly compelling argument. Would he say yes, she is too young to have a kid, or she is too poor to have a kid, I agree, please severe my spine and throw me in a trashcan.
Next?
This is a fake argument without merit. The point at which it is aborted, it doesn't have a fully-functioning nervous system and couldn't comprehend any of what you're saying.
As far as a child "not being viable" until some years after its born; no, it's viable, it has a functioning stimulus/response nervous system and a developing brain that can store information and comprehends pain. The point at which the vast majority of fetuses are aborted, this is not the case.
No, they make a CHOICE because they're not limited to only one action.
Your so-called logic utterly fails unless you can cite specific examples of people lobbying to make abortion the only option available when a pregnancy becomes known.
Have you not followed the 3 pages of conversation that preceded the post you are responding to? Let me repeat the logic and see if you can follow along this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Actually, it's very simple. When you place the preposition "pro" in front of a word, it means "in favor of." If you voluntarily went to a doctor to have an abortion done, you are in favor of abortion. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gotten one. The logical conclusion is that, at least at the time when you got an abortion, you were pro-abortion.
You notice, I am not talking about the political side of the equation or the pro-choice/pro-life argument. I am talking about the specific person who decides to get an abortion instead of taking any other option. That person, at the time they receive an abortion, is pro-abortion. This isn't rocket surgery, it's logic.
1.) arbitrary beginning point. Without interjection, the baby would be born due to the fertilization at conception. That is the obvious and indisputable origin of life.
2.) I could replicate the results over and over with any animal, whether it be human or other animal. The only hand that would change the outcome biological flaws in the mother or child, which are natural and happen with and without medical intervention.
3.) If there is no other reason than being at eminent risk of dying (from mother perspective) then all other reasoning for killing your own child would fall under the genre of vanity.
(Let me guess you believe in mercy killings, er excuse me, abortions for known Down's syndrome unborn babies?)
4.) The unborn human's life trumps the all other mothers rights when it isn't an clear cut case of her life versus the babies. What rights are you speaking of? I've said, when its life-threatening by uniamous doctors opinion then I will agree the mother wins the tiebreaker and abortion is acceptable.
5.) it is a form of governance. The right to life whether born or unborn is enforced by the government. I don't understand why you can't get this I explained it once. Without the obvious law that murder is illegal, then anyone who was able to kill you would be able to just take your life whenever they chose because they are able to. The reason you walk down the streets with comfort is because you know not only is it morally right to let people be free and live, the government has police which will catch and detain people who attempt to take that right/freedom from you whether they fail or not.
This is basic natural law.
I stand by my comments, they are the truth and most of the women I know would follow the same beliefs.
Without interjection? What do you mean, "interjection"? By the way, MISCARRIAGES far outnumber ABORTIONS, so actually, no, without intercession, interference, a child is not always the outcome of fertilization.
And I don't care what most of the women you know tell you, someone who is adamantly misogynistic and absolutely sure of his conclusions (meaning that whether most of the women you know actually agree with you they won't contradict you, because they don't want to risk a confrontation with you).
If a woman is thinking about the quality of life for her and her existing children, she has EVERY right to consider whether pregnancy and an additional child is going to negatively impact her and her family. In our patriarchal society, we let men make quality-of-life decisions all the time. But SOME of us characterize a woman who gives thought to these considerations as selfish, because she has a womb, and evidently SOME of us think of that womb as community property. It's not.
I notice you've retreated from the libertarianist argument (which was completely invalid), to a basic natural law argument (which of course is basic natural law ONLY in patriarchal systems). Logically, a woman who is an equal member of society, who represents a substantial investment by that society, has autonomy over her body. If she doesn't have autonomy, she doesn't have equality. And that would make her a second-class citizen.
So, I stand by my arguments. Women, who are intelligent, reasonable, responsible, moral members of society, deserve the same respect that any other member of society merits. And that would include the right to make autonomous decisions regarding their lives, their bodies, and life-changing events.
You notice, I am not talking about the political side of the equation or the
pro-choice/pro-life argument. I am talking about the specific person who
decides to get an abortion instead of taking any other option. That person, at
the time they receive an abortion, is pro-abortion. This isn't rocket surgery, it's logic.
And it isn't brain science, either. What it IS, is none of your business.
You will hear nothing but talking points on this subject. Let's just break this down as a libertarian, which is the much more enlightened point of view than the typical knuckle-draggers from both sides weighing in.
The major flaw to your "breaking it down as a libertarian" is that the rest of your post is in direct conflict with the platform of the Libertarian Party. I have pasted the pertinent excerpt below.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
I guess you must be one of those Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin style authoritarians that attempts to dress up their anti-freedom statist views as libertarian since being a conservative Republican that claims to support a smaller, less intrusive government while also supporting granting government the power to force women to carry pregnancies to term is now correctly seen as full of crap. They have a word for people like that and it is not libertarian - it is hypocrite.
Last edited by Sco; 08-14-2013 at 03:12 PM..
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.
