Its my body,

#501
#501
Purple Tiger said:
It's plain and simple. If pro-life folks don't want to take personal and financial (or even parental) responsibility for these unaborted and unwanted children, then they should keep their stupid mouths shut and let women make their own decisions.
Click to expand...
Fine decide not to have sex.
Decide not to have sex in a manner that leads to pregnancy.

It's another one of those beautiful ironies of politics. Purposely killing a baby via abortion is ok for one side, but that side is not OK with their being a chance of one person infecting another with a disease that has a 99.5% survival rate. The flip is generally true too. The difference seems to be one side has an issue with possible survival while the other has issue with definite death.
 
#502
#502
Purple Tiger said:
No. Purps is actually challenging evangelicals who loudly protest abortion rights but are unwilling to open maternity homes, orphanages or put in place a comprehensive adoption system to do so. The first evangelical anti-abortion Christian minister I remember who did those things is Dr. Jerry Falwell, and I greatly admired him for that. It is not Christian to ignore unwanted children who need good homes and proper parental care. The Bible says we are obligated with taking care of orphans.

4 Things the Bible Says About Orphans - Show Hope
Click to expand...
Selective arguments ho!

Get your silly bible out of here we are killing babies Now stand there while I beat you over the head with this other part of the bible.

Again we cant get an internally consistent argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#506
#506
Roustabout said:
It's pretty pathetic that you think that being pro-life is about trying to control someones reproductive rigths.
Let's start there. Where do these rights exist? And how do those rights permit a woman to destroy a unique developing human?
Click to expand...

It's only about reproductive rights, RvW extended that choice to women, full stop. You can try and misrepresent the argument all you want, I would if i were you. Because the feelz of calling your opponents "pro murder" muddies the water enough to justify a seat at the table.

I think it's pathetic that you try to insert yourself into the non-existent magical space between a woman and her healthcare provider. Where's your "right" to do that? Let's start there. Do you believe your moral authority extends to infringe on the the legal, informed decisions between a patient and HCP? Where do you derive that right?

Buzz off, save your indignation for some one who believes you actually posses the moral high ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#508
#508
LouderVol said:
No said they had to have sex. No one at all.

They made their choice. They engaged in the one act that traditionally leads to pregnancy. Physiologically (that may not be the right word) there is no biological difference in having sex to have sex or having sex to get pregnant. Choice of deciding to suddenly become pregnant has never been on the table. Just like the choice to not be pregnant shouldnt be on the table.

You are making your own emotional argument because there isnt an non emotional argument to be had. Or at least not one being presented. She shouldnt be pregnant after engaging in the one action that directly leads to pregnancy because of wanting a child or not? That is an emotional argument.
Click to expand...

My argument is based on the law. A law which states women can have abortions.... So, where am I being emotional? Your argument is based loosely on a set of standards that are subjective to your whims about what sex and it's possible consequences should entail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#509
#509
LouderVol said:
If I was a native I would be pissed about him having statues. Or are they traitors to America too?
Click to expand...

You'll need to elaborate on what you're trying to convey here.

Who did I suggest was a traitor?
 
#510
#510
#512
#512
LouderVol said:
Ask mom. Anecdotally the woman has a good bit of say in the matter.

Dad doesnt get to decide to terminate. Or at least if he does he gets charged. But mom doesnt?
Click to expand...
They want full equality for women, but when it comes to pregnancy for some reason a woman who consensually participates in sex is still viewed as purely at the mercy of the male on how a baby is made. Pretty sure that takes 50/50 participation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#513
#513
Septic said:
My argument is based on the law. A law which states women can have abortions.... So, where am I being emotional? Your argument is based loosely on a set of standards that are subjective to your whims about what sex and it's possible consequences should entail.
Click to expand...
The right of life in this argument is based on the womans feeling towards her child.

At least in states where killing a pregnant woman, and the baby also dies, counts as two murders instead of one, the distinction between that law and abortion is feeling. At least some states (38) it seems the laws arent consistent on what is life. Here's a jacked up scenario, woman wants to get an abortion, is on the way to a clinic (has an appointment), gets hit by a negligent driver and dies. How should various states handle it? Was it one life or two?

Its not my whims (unless I am personally involved, giggity) that are being reviewed. Its nature. Sex can lead to pregnancy. That's not an opinion. It's a fact of life. I cant think of other facts of life where I get to kill someone to avoid the consquences of that fact of life.

I lose a fight with gravity. I could be crippled or in the hospital for 9 months. I dont get to kill someone to speed up my healing process via transplants or some type of cosmic balance or any other argument.

Which just circles back to my stance that my body my choice=abortion isnt internally consistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and RikidyBones
#514
#514
Septic said:
You'll need to elaborate on what you're trying to convey here.

Who did I suggest was a traitor?
Click to expand...
Does the reason for the removal of statue matter?

I guess the other side I hadnt thought of is:The natives were the losers to the great perfect union of the US. I guess we need to tear down all those monuments about the trail of tears, different chiefs, and other famous natives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#515
#515
TheDeeble said:
They want full equality for women, but when it comes to pregnancy for some reason a woman who consensually participates in sex is still viewed as purely at the mercy of the male on how a baby is made. Pretty sure that takes 50/50 participation.
Click to expand...
If it was 50/50 I would have a lot more sex... i think most guys can agree to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#516
#516
Septic said:
It's only about reproductive rights, RvW extended that choice to women, full stop. You can try and misrepresent the argument all you want, I would if i were you. Because the feelz of calling your opponents "pro murder" muddies the water enough to justify a seat at the table.

I think it's pathetic that you try to insert yourself into the non-existent magical space between a woman and her healthcare provider. Where's your "right" to do that? Let's start there. Do you believe your moral authority extends to infringe on the the legal, informed decisions between a patient and HCP? Where do you derive that right?

Buzz off, save your indignation for some one who believes you actually posses the moral high ground.
Click to expand...
there is no misrepresenting and I resent the implication. Your whole argument is pathetic BS. What is the basis of these rights? A court? Ok. Courts change.

There is nothing healthy or caring about invading a women’s body and destroying the developing life within.

The truth behind Roe is going to unravel.

This has nothing to do with MY moral authority. Either the unborn deserve protection or they don’t.
 
#517
#517
Roustabout said:
there is no misrepresenting and I resent the implication. Your whole argument is pathetic BS. What is the basis of these rights? A court? Ok. Courts change.

There is nothing healthy or caring about invading a women’s body and destroying the developing life within.

The truth behind Roe is going to unravel.

This has nothing to do with MY moral authority. Either the unborn deserve protection or they don’t.
Click to expand...

What's the basis for whether the unborn deserve protection or not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#518
#518
Roustabout said:
As you were asked, why are you worried about it being born. Embryo is a scientific term. Child is a sociological term.

-When a woman is pregnant is she with embryo or with child?
Birth is another phase of human development, just as is the embryonic stage.
Click to expand...

So on the census can a woman put they have a child if they’re pregnant? No. It’s not born. Are you against plan b pills as well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#522
#522
USMC-TNVOL said:
So on the census can a woman put they have a child if they’re pregnant? No. It’s not born. Are you against plan b pills as well?
Click to expand...
A census is not what determines when life begins. I have no qualms not counting a human until the birth occurs. Pregnancy is a symbiotic phase of human development

In my best understanding, human development begins after fertilization, once implantation has occurred. An unimplanted egg will not produce a human life. Plan B prevents implantation. So, based on the best science I do not currently take issue with plan B.

My pro-life position is built only on facts derived from science and natural law. I have no disire to control women. If that were the case we’d place limits on sexuality.
 
#523
#523
USMC-TNVOL said:
So on the census can a woman put they have a child if they’re pregnant? No. It’s not born. Are you against plan b pills as well?
Click to expand...

When you hear a woman talking about being pregnant does she say “ my embryo “ or my “baby “?
 
#524
#524
Roustabout said:
A census is not what determines when life begins. I have no qualms not counting a human until the birth occurs. Pregnancy is a symbiotic phase of human development

In my best understanding, human development begins after fertilization, once implantation has occurred. An unimplanted egg will not produce a human life. Plan B prevents implantation. So, based on the best science I do not currently take issue with plan B.

My pro-life position is built only on facts derived from science and natural law. I have no disire to control women. If that were the case we’d place limits on sexuality.
Click to expand...

Your pro life position is not based only on science and natural law. Essentially, you’re stating once implantation happens, it’s murder. If that’s the case, then you’re against incest or rape abortions as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and Purple Tiger
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top