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.
Abortion is cold blooded murder. You say if "I" was aborted, but you claim that the fetus was not you, so were is the "salience" in your oh so adult post?
Give him a break, he's a young male with no real world experience. Maybe some day he'll get a clue before it's too late. I wish I had.
@jjrose: Quick question, though: Are there any jobs/professions at all where cameras are required by law? I know places such as stores and hotels (where people work) do have cameras, but it is mandatory by law to have cameras in/at such places?
If the answer to this question is No, then my previous idea (which I simply threw out there) about cameras might have been a bad one.
There is a difference between a camera watching you check in to a hotel, and a camera watching you get a vaginal exam. I honestly do not know of any laws that state any business MUST have a camera, most do so for security reasons. Even hospitals have security cameras, but no in exam rooms because of patient privacy concerns. The same goes for bathrooms. It is illegal to have cameras in bathrooms and dressing rooms because there is an expectation of privacy. I expect privacy when I am having a medical exam, there are laws about patient confidentiality that help to protect my medical privacy. Assuming you are a male, would you be ok having a prostate exam on camera? I know I don't want my pap smears recorded.
What is it about the act of removing one's panties prior to copulation that says to you "without consent"?
If you genuinely are too stupid to realize that copulating causes pregnancy and that pregnancy, by your willful and deliberate actions, makes an innocent party biologically dependent on your body for some 22 weeks, then you are clearly too stupid to make an important decision about another person's body.
As for that other retarded point of yours, a fetus is most definitely a person.
It's just that these persons have been declared non-persons by a court that has a track record of declaring persons to be non-persons.
Black slaves were once non-persons and an owner could dispose of them as he or she liked.
So what's new under the Sun?
Consent to sex is not consent for pregnancy. We have been over this before.
In the case of a male, consent to financially supporting a child until age eighteen is given at the moment of ejaculation.
Except that females, a voting majority, have special standing under the law and are not held accountable for their actions, the same standard of accountability could be applied to women who make fetuses biologically dependent.
When did the innocent fetus consent to being made dependent on the mother's body?
No, responsibility to pay for a child begins when that child is born, not at ejaculation.
There is no male consequence of pregnancy. There is male consequences of being a father, but legally that doesn't happen until after the pregnancy is over, and the female is equally responsible for a child. So, please do tell the male consequence during pregnancy.
Then I suppose that ups a woman's stake in not engaging in the act of human reproduction at a time when she is absolutely not interested in reproducing.
Quote:
You seem to be missing the issue of the difference between a fetus, and a person. One is solely reliant on ONE person. One is a born living and breathing person with rights.
And by this measure, you don't become a person until you can survive on your own. A newborn can't. A toddler can't. A preschooler can't. There is an outside shot that you might survive unaided when you hit about 8 or 10 years old. The law puts that age much farther forward: Between 16 and 18 years old. Do you support the right to "abort" the average bundle of cells between the ages of 13 and 17? Parents are pretty unanimous that this is the hardest part of raising a child. Think about it: They're just a leech sucking away resources, money, food, etc. And the law does not recognize their ability to survive on their own. Can we "abort" them legally then?
The simple fact is that the SCOTUS and the pro-abortion propaganda machine has seen fit to define one stage in human life as non-human. What gave them the right to do this? If history repeats itself and you were to find yourself in the same position as the Jews in WW2 -- defined as non-human and therefore having no right to live -- how would you feel about that? "Fetus" is just another stage in human life along with infant, toddler, etc. A fetus is capable of feeling pain and fighting in their tiny way for survival at a very early stage. Nobody has the right to define them as non-human anymore than the Nazis had the right to define the Jews as non-human.
Quote:
As for my examples, it doesn't matter if she is trying to miscarry or not. Why should a man have full control of his body, medical decisions, and privacy, but a woman has to lose hers for 9 months without committing a crime.
I can go driving in a car, do nothing wrong and still get killed when somebody else screws up. I can die without committing a crime. I can smoke like a chimney my entire adult life, die of lung cancer at age 40 and I will have never committed a crime in the process. I have the right to imbibe alcohol, but if I massively overdo it, I can die of alcohol poisoning without committing a crime. I have the right to engage in any number of dangerous activities, and if I'm seriously injured or killed, I'll go through a lot of bad stuff without ever committing a crime.
But let's be honest here. You're of the opinion that both men and women have the right to engage in the act of human reproduction without causing human reproduction. That's just stupid. Men and women both know perfectly well what nature intended sex for: Pregnancy. Making babies. Now if you are looking for life to be 100% fair, you'll be 100% disappointed. Women get a worse set of consequences with pregnancy, wanted or unwanted. It's not like you or I can wave a magic wand and fix this unbalance. Sex is about making babies. You can use birth control pills, condoms, etc and still get pregnant because you are in fact engaging in the act of making babies. Why do you have the right to kill the baby when you succeed? The baby committed no crime. The baby showed up right when it was told to.
Capital punishment makes a million times more sense. At least the criminal being executed actually did something wrong to cause his or her life to be forfeit. If a man rapes and slowly tortures to death 100 little girls before finally getting caught, and you consider it an atrocity to take his life, then abortion should make absolutely no sense whatsoever to you.
Then I suppose that ups a woman's stake in not engaging in the act of human reproduction at a time when she is absolutely not interested in reproducing.
And by this measure, you don't become a person until you can survive on your own. A newborn can't. A toddler can't. A preschooler can't. There is an outside shot that you might survive unaided when you hit about 8 or 10 years old. The law puts that age much farther forward: Between 16 and 18 years old. Do you support the right to "abort" the average bundle of cells between the ages of 13 and 17? Parents are pretty unanimous that this is the hardest part of raising a child. Think about it: They're just a leech sucking away resources, money, food, etc. And the law does not recognize their ability to survive on their own. Can we "abort" them legally then?
The simple fact is that the SCOTUS and the pro-abortion propaganda machine has seen fit to define one stage in human life as non-human. What gave them the right to do this? If history repeats itself and you were to find yourself in the same position as the Jews in WW2 -- defined as non-human and therefore having no right to live -- how would you feel about that? "Fetus" is just another stage in human life along with infant, toddler, etc. A fetus is capable of feeling pain and fighting in their tiny way for survival at a very early stage. Nobody has the right to define them as non-human anymore than the Nazis had the right to define the Jews as non-human.
I can go driving in a car, do nothing wrong and still get killed when somebody else screws up. I can die without committing a crime. I can smoke like a chimney my entire adult life, die of lung cancer at age 40 and I will have never committed a crime in the process. I have the right to imbibe alcohol, but if I massively overdo it, I can die of alcohol poisoning without committing a crime. I have the right to engage in any number of dangerous activities, and if I'm seriously injured or killed, I'll go through a lot of bad stuff without ever committing a crime.
But let's be honest here. You're of the opinion that both men and women have the right to engage in the act of human reproduction without causing human reproduction. That's just stupid. Men and women both know perfectly well what nature intended sex for: Pregnancy. Making babies. Now if you are looking for life to be 100% fair, you'll be 100% disappointed. Women get a worse set of consequences with pregnancy, wanted or unwanted. It's not like you or I can wave a magic wand and fix this unbalance. Sex is about making babies. You can use birth control pills, condoms, etc and still get pregnant because you are in fact engaging in the act of making babies. Why do you have the right to kill the baby when you succeed? The baby committed no crime. The baby showed up right when it was told to.
Capital punishment makes a million times more sense. At least the criminal being executed actually did something wrong to cause his or her life to be forfeit. If a man rapes and slowly tortures to death 100 little girls before finally getting caught, and you consider it an atrocity to take his life, then abortion should make absolutely no sense whatsoever to you.
A fetus doesn't even have the basic neural capability for consciousness until the 3rd trimester.
... when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.
Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester
I never said that it did. However, it will eventually develop such capabilities, as you yourself said.
I don't think that future abilities should be completely irrelevant here. After all, if one disregards future abilities, then I don't see why, from a non-speciesist perspective, human infants should be treated better (including in terms of which rights they have) than non-human animals of equal or greater current mental abilities.
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.
