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.
Nope. I didn't surrender, I'm using logic and science. A fetus isn't a born person, therefore it's not murder
Arguments by assertion are logical fallacies.
You are also not using whatever you imagine "science" to be. A born person can have a non-functioning nervous system. If I stab such a person to death, using the "logic" you employ, I did not kill that person, er, object, er, thing. Notice how you shifted your argument from one where a functioning nervous system is the standard by which we declare someone no longer a person to whether one is born? Using this new standard, where a person must be born to be a person, I just want to clarify that you would argue that an unborn child five minutes before being delivered is still not a person? Are you going with that or do you want to pivot again to something new?
For those of you who are totally against abortion, what are you going to do when women have babies they don't want and can't afford? Are you going to take them in? Pay for them? Comforting these babies when they wake up crying four times each night? Pro-life means respecting life from cradle to grave, after all. What's the plan after they are born? After these bans are enacted, there are consequences. This is real life. It's messy. It's not ideal. The problem won't magically solve itself just because Louisiana bans abortion. Once they are born, our taxes will go up, because the children will need CHIP, SNAP, and Food Stamps. Are you willing to pay more taxes?
Aren't these all issues for the adopting parents to deal with?
Lots of nice couples wait years to adopt a newborn.
The reason they have to wait so long is women get abortions because, after doing everything needed to become pregnant, they decide they don't want to be pregnant.
Banning abortion will probably make the years-long wait for a newborn a little shorter.
My sister interviewed three couples before granting the adoption of her son to a nice professional couple.
Of course the left would hate that because the couple were devout Christians and raised my biological nephew in accordance with biblical principles.
In his early twenties now, he has almost competed his bachelor's degree, works at his father's firm, plays sports and has a girlfriend.
His parents never received a dime of taxpayer money (CHIP, SNAP, food stamps, etc.)
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiociolliscalves
Arguments by assertion are logical fallacies.
You are also not using whatever you imagine "science" to be. A born person can have a non-functioning nervous system. If I stab such a person to death, using the "logic" you employ, I did not kill that person, er, object, er, thing. Notice how you shifted your argument from one where a functioning nervous system is the standard by which we declare someone no longer a person to whether one is born? Using this new standard, where a person must be born to be a person, I just want to clarify that you would argue that an unborn child five minutes before being delivered is still not a person? Are you going with that or do you want to pivot again to something new?
Second/third trimester boundary is where I draw the line, because third trimester fetuses can be viable outside the womb
Adoption is very expensive and whites are more affluent than minorities. Many white people don’t want to adopt minority children. That’s why they linger in foster care.
For the umpteenth time how is me stating my opinion on abortion limiting or controlling women? You pro-abortionists can't tolerate a difference of opinion without resorting to your nonsense above? You just can't stand it unless you can convince us anti-abortionists to agree with you? Why is that so important to you? This is a forum not a voting booth.
Women have the right to control their reproductive capabilities by not getting pregnant in the first place by using birth control and/or making sure her sex partner does. They also know ahead of time that there is a failure rate on not using it properly. If they go ahead and have sex anyway they become responsible for welfare of the life that was created. Being responsible IMO is not killing it.
Control as in group think not you in particular other than your view of limiting her choice go to that overall feeling. No one has a problem with how a man controls or runs his sex life, a woman deserves the same.
Just debating my thoughts i can tolerate your opinions, which is why I engaged you. Isn’t that why you’re here? Or you only want to engage with people you agree with. I don’t have to stay silent because I differ from you.
Many women consider abortion taking responsibility
No one is missing the "legal" distinction as you are presenting it here.
Slaves were 3/5 of a person per legal definition. Do you believe that a slave was comprised of 3/5 the biological matter as a white person?
And there is of course the distinction that 38 states make .. when killing an unborn? Is considered murder. Fetal homicide. Punishable by law.
How do you continue to gloss over the 3/5 of a person legal definition of a slave as well as the 38 states that consider killing an unborn child murder?
Never seen you or anyone else answer either of those. Legal isn't science. And legal? Isn't right either. And that is the distinction that you miss time and time again.
The legal terms matter when the government is getting involved, passing laws criminalizing and then interpreting the Constitution on the issue of abortion. Suddenly what should be a personal decision regarding one's body and a doctor who can help is about the law, and whether it can be made illegal, whether one has a right to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom. So any legal terms matter - person, murder.
You say "legal isn't science" or "right" and call it a distinction, yet use laws when they suit you. Notice how feticide laws apply when someone harms the mother, without her consent? There is a distinction even between feticide and abortion. Abortion is a woman's choice. Feticide is essentially/usually a harm to the mother resulting in the death of a fetus, it is not something she chooses or consents to. Which means there is also a distinction between wanted unborn babies and unwanted ones, along with the distinction between a born person and an unborn one/a fetus. The existence of abortion itself, something old as humanity, proves that. You don't have to like it (or ever abort yourself) but too bad, it is there. Abortion isn't going anywhere, no matter what the law says.
As long as you see fetuses as totally equal to living people including the women who carry them, you will never ever see the arguments for abortion. You won't let yourself even get that far. Your argument is an easy way out of arguing the more difficult aspects of the issue, like between competing rights, then, of the mother and baby; why other people (like you) get to decide for the unborn yet the woman can't decide for herself, why the living breathing functioning woman can't override the non-viable, unborn baby that has no awareness and will never know the difference, etc.
The 3/5 compromise comparison is a poor one because it applied to living people who'd already been born, like the argument made earlier than pro-choice people must think the Holocaust was okay if we are okay with abortion, and was obviously ridiculous as it was baseless race-based discrimination. It was a justification for slavery. When the 3/5 compromise was law in the US, abortion was legal to the point of quickening/feeling the baby move, which is usually a few weeks into the second trimester.
For those of you who are totally against abortion, what are you going to do when women have babies they don't want and can't afford? Are you going to take them in? Pay for them?
I often ask this about illegal immigrants. Shouldn't those who think they ought to be here pick up their expenses? Housing, food, medical care, education ..... When are folks like Nancy Pelosi or other supporters of illegal immigrants going to step up to the plate?
Seems the problem of unwanted babies isn't new ..... what did we do before we had legalized abortion?
A brain dead person is already dead, so you can not kill them again.
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.
You pro-abortionists can't tolerate a difference of opinion without resorting to your nonsense above? You just can't stand it unless you can convince us anti-abortionists to agree with you? Why is that so important to you? This is a forum not a voting booth. 