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.
Are you okay with forcing people to vaccinate their children? Just as one example, the MMR vaccine carries a risk of a child developing acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, which is a neurological condition that carries up to a 10% mortality rate. Forced vaccination carries a risk of death. We don't know which children will die because of the MMR vaccine. Is it still okay to force parents to vaccinate children?
Apples/oranges.
A woman having an abortion poses no threat to your life, not vaccinating poses a threat to others.
If you want to discuss the issues with universal health care, that deserves its own thread.
Do you believe in preemptive murder to ensure your own safety?
Because that is the argument .. pregnancy is so dangerous ... the fetus will kill the mother ... women die in childbirth .. so kill the baby, it solves that problem and reduces risk.
Do you believe that preemptive murder is a valid argument?
I awake in the middle of the night to find an intruder in my home, it isn't considered murder if I shoot him dead on the spot.
I do not have to wait until I am dying from his assault to protect myself.
I awake in the middle of the night to find an intruder in my home, it isn't considered murder if I shoot him dead on the spot.
I do not have to wait until I am dying from his assault to protect myself.
Case closed.
Self defense is different from murder.
Your analogy doesn't hold water. An equivalent situation would be more like finding the intruder's kids and then killing them. They had nothing to do with the fact that the intruder was in your house. Just like the baby had nothing to do with how it was conceived.
Case closed? Hardly. Maybe you should add in a nyah nyah nyah nyah nayh, pppfffffft, too.
There are always exceptions to everything. Including women who love the fact that other women get abortions. Like, LOVE abortion. Beause they believe its empowering.
Are they norm? Doubtful. But they are an exception. So if you want to talk exceptions, let's talk about celebration of abortion and how wonderful some prochoicers think it is to ALWAYS get an abortion vs having a child. /eyeroll/
It's called an analogy, and it certainly isn't off topic. The person I responded to argues that a woman should not be forced to carry a baby to term because there is a risk of death to that woman if she does so. I am merely questioning whether a child should be forced to be vaccinated when there is a risk that the child will die from the vaccine.
The other factor that the person I replied to neglects is that the statistics concerning maternal mortality include deaths from all pregnancy-related causes. This includes deaths due to complications from having an abortion. There is a risk either way to the mother; have an abortion or carry the baby to term. The difference between the two is obviously the risk to the child; by definition delivery carries much less risk than abortion from the child's point of view.
BTW, you do NOT get to define my position for me. Please stop with the simplistic black and white thinking. You may prefer to argue against those who are religious fanatics and believe that there should never be an abortion for any reason whatsoever and that we need to punish those evil sluts who dare to have sex. That is NOT me. This issue is not cut-and-dried, black and white; there are subtle nuances of opinion out there. I know that might make you uncomfortable since you cannot just call me a religious nut and dismiss my arguments out of hand. (I am an atheist, BTW, so that line of attack would carry zero weight). That's not the reality, though. You can label me if you must, but let's please stick to responding to what I actually am saying. I AM pro-life, with a couple of exceptions. This issue involves a moral dilemma that is difficult and your simplistic one size fits all mentality probably is not a good fit. There ARE cases, IMO, where a woman's rights trump the right to life of the child as I have outlined.
That is not true.
Deaths from abortion are not included in deaths due to carrying a pregnancy.
And, the risk to life from having a legal, safe abortion is MUCH less than carrying a pregnancy.
Your analogy doesn't hold water. An equivalent situation would be more like finding the intruder's kids and then killing them. They had nothing to do with the fact that the intruder was in your house. Just like the baby had nothing to do with how it was conceived.
Case closed? Hardly. Maybe you should add in a nyah nyah nyah nyah nayh, pppfffffft, too.
Nope, my analogy is spot on.
You are killing the intruder even though you have no proof he is a threat to your life.
He is a threat, even though you have no proof, just like ending a pregnancy is ending a threat even though you have no proof.
I hope you think this way for men as well as women. Men need to be responsible for their own sperm and stop just leaving it to the woman
They might think this way if this was truly about the pregnancy. But these pro-forced-birther arguments are never really about that. It's about punishing women for having sex.
That's why men routinely get a pass from the forced birthers. No one tells them to keep their pants zipped. Nope, they congratulate him for his "conquests." They give him attaboys as he carves another notch on his belt.
It's called an analogy, and it certainly isn't off topic. The person I responded to argues that a woman should not be forced to carry a baby to term because there is a risk of death to that woman if she does so. I am merely questioning whether a child should be forced to be vaccinated when there is a risk that the child will die from the vaccine.
The other factor that the person I replied to neglects is that the statistics concerning maternal mortality include deaths from all pregnancy-related causes. This includes deaths due to complications from having an abortion. There is a risk either way to the mother; have an abortion or carry the baby to term. The difference between the two is obviously the risk to the child; by definition delivery carries much less risk than abortion from the child's point of view.
BTW, you do NOT get to define my position for me. Please stop with the simplistic black and white thinking. You may prefer to argue against those who are religious fanatics and believe that there should never be an abortion for any reason whatsoever and that we need to punish those evil sluts who dare to have sex. That is NOT me. This issue is not cut-and-dried, black and white; there are subtle nuances of opinion out there. I know that might make you uncomfortable since you cannot just call me a religious nut and dismiss my arguments out of hand. (I am an atheist, BTW, so that line of attack would carry zero weight). That's not the reality, though. You can label me if you must, but let's please stick to responding to what I actually am saying. I AM pro-life, with a couple of exceptions. This issue involves a moral dilemma that is difficult and your simplistic one size fits all mentality probably is not a good fit. There ARE cases, IMO, where a woman's rights trump the right to life of the child as I have outlined.
Clever, helping prochoice like that.
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.
