Do pro-choice people say?

[MercyPercy]

Fetus at 12 weeks.
Hey Mom, I know we haven't met yet, but just in case I'm an inconvenience to your life, please feel free to have a doctor (who was sworn to protect life) invade your body, which was actaully designed to protect me and sustain me, and then inject a solution into my defenseless body that is designed to tear me apart so that I can then be vacumned out of your womb and thrown into a dumpster. Oh, and don't worry, it's not murder, because Percy said we are trending away from over simplified thinking.
Love,
Your unborn child.

That was cute.

 

[Roustabout]

Sensationalism brought about by religious belief. Religious belief does not dictate policy.

Yawn.

When have I mentioned religious belief? Nice try, but your week debate tactics don't fly. I've yet to mention anything religious. This is a human rights issue.
I've brought forth scientific facts and you throw out red herrrings because you can't or won't intelligently discuss the facts. Great job.

 

[hndog609]

And who is concerned about the 'rights' of the mother?

It's brought up in a later post but if it were simply a matter of "rights of the mother" to have a child there wouldn't (or shouldn't anyway) be much of a conversation. That isn't really the question though. Is there (or should there be) a "right" for a person to have a child when, right from the start without any guesswork involved, it's going to fall on others to pony up for that child's welfare?

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

Fetus at 12 weeks.
Hey Mom, I know we haven't met yet, but just in case I'm an inconvenience to your life, please feel free to have a doctor (who was sworn to protect life) invade your body, which was actaully designed to protect me and sustain me, and then inject a solution into my defenseless body that is meant to tear me apart so that I can then be vacumned out of your womb and thrown into a dumpster. Oh, and don't worry, it's not murder, because Percy said we are trending away from over simplified thinking.
Love,
Your unborn child.

"Hey, I just met you
And this is crazy
But I don't want you
So kill my baby"

 

[MercyPercy]

When have I mentioned religious belief? Nice try, but your week debate tactics don't fly. I've yet to mention anything religious. This is a human rights issue.
I've brought forth scientific facts and you throw out red herrrings because you can't or won't intelligently discuss the facts. Great job.

I thought all morals come from god, thus your problem with abortion based on morality is inherently religious.

You guys can't even keep your arguments straight.

 

[Roustabout]

I thought all morals come from god, thus your problem with abortion based on morality is inherently religious.

You guys can't even keep your arguments straight.

You are welcome to try and find where I said that. Please feel free, and then you can come back and apologize when you find out that you completely misrepresented my position.

Does someone have to be religious to know that murder is wrong? Rape?
We are talking universals here. I don't expect you to understand the difference in the ontological vs. epistemological issues when arguing morality. People who don't understand electricty can still know that if they flip a light switch it will power their lamp.

Either you can address the points I brougth forth or you can't. I mentioned red herrings, and by golly you didn't disappoint. Instead of dealing with the facts of the discussion, you result to attacking me. It's a sad, pathetic debate tactic. Fine, if you want to show everyone you are weak minded and can't debate the facts, feel free.

 

[Roustabout]

It's brought up in a later post but if it were simply a matter of "rights of the mother" to have a child there wouldn't (or shouldn't anyway) be much of a conversation. That isn't really the question though. Is there (or should there be) a "right" for a person to have a child when, right from the start without any guesswork involved, it's going to fall on others to pony up for that child's welfare?

Not sure I follow. Are you saying we punish (abort) the unborn because of the sins of their parents?

 

[hndog609]

Not sure I follow. Are you saying we punish (abort) the unborn because of the sins of their parents?

I can see how it'd be confusing (considering all the back and forth) but if you look this was in regards to the sterilization question. That course could, in theory, all but eliminate unintended pregnancies.

 

[Roustabout]

a stillborn baby is "a new human life"? It's human but not a life

Great. So what are you arguing for or against here? Or is this just some rabbit trail that leads nowhere. Can we agree that there is a caveat. No one here is debating on whether or not to force a mother to give birth to a dead human. The argument is about the living.

 

[MercyPercy]

You are welcome to try and find where I said that. Please feel free, and then you can come back and apologize when you find out that you completely misrepresented my position.

Does someone have to be religious to know that murder is wrong? Rape?
We are talking universals here. I don't expect you to understand the difference in the ontological vs. epistemological issues when arguing morality. People who don't understand electricty can still know that if they flip a light switch it will power their lamp.

Either you can address the points I brougth forth or you can't. I mentioned red herrings, and by golly you didn't disappoint. Instead of dealing with the facts of the discussion, you result to attacking me. It's a sad, pathetic debate tactic. Fine, if you want to show everyone you are weak minded and can't debate the facts, feel free.

Was is not you and orange crush that debated for days on end that all morals inherently come from god?

I find enjoyment in pointing out your inconsistensies. It shows that you yourself are participating in shaping your own argument as you see fit depending on the debate at hand, even if it contradicts prior assertions.

You can call me weak minded, I don't mind. It's akin to a child calling me a big dumb doo doo head. I just smile, pat you on the head, and send you on your way.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Was is not you and orange crush that debated for days on end that all morals inherently come from god?

I find enjoyment in pointing out your inconsistensies. It shows that you yourself are participating in shaping your own argument as you see fit depending on the debate at hand, even if it contradicts prior assertions.

You can call me weak minded, I don't mind. It's akin to a child calling me a big dumb doo doo head. I just smile, pat you on the head, and send you on your way.

Still coming in here w/the weak sauce being applied.

 

[TNsnyper20]

This is what I do not understand. The pro-choice crowd claims it's a woman's choice because "it's her body". What is "her body"? Surely you don't mean the unborn child which she is carrying; it cannot be her body as the body of the child is not a complete DNA match to the mother.

So if you can agree that the fetus (which only carries a 50% DNA match with its host) scientifically cannot be the same as the mother, by simple deduction, we can see that the unborn child is NOT "her body" after all. By using DNA, we can also see that the fetus is also human.

So what does that mean? Well, if there is a human being who's life I purposely end, would I not be killing another human? Outside of situations such as war and self-defense, what is the most appropriate word for this? The correct answer would be 'murder'.

What does the lib say? 'Oh, but that fetus hasn't been born yet, so it's not a human being...' So if one of those ASPCA commercials with the sad music and abused animals comes on and shows someone perform an abortion on the unborn puppies - including the brain scrambling and sucking and dismembering of limbs via vacuum - what do you think would happen? Everyone would be appalled at the mutilation and murder of a puppy! Oh, so the unborn dog is a dog, but the unborn human is not a real human? I'm sensing some liberal logic.

Now answer me this: how is that scenario worse than the murder (see how we got there two paragraphs up) of a human baby (again, it's mot the mother's body as the DNA doesn't match)? How can that be justified?

At the time that an abortion would typically be done the fetus cannot survive without the mothers body. So that's where I get its her body.

I understand where you're coming from and my wife and I would never abort unless the situation was necessary. Just making the statement it's not my decision to make for someone else.

 

[MercyPercy]

Still coming in here w/the weak sauce being applied.

Tell me how you really feel..

 

[etmVol]

At the time that an abortion would typically be done the fetus cannot survive without the mothers body. So that's where I get its her body.

I understand where you're coming from and my wife and I would never abort unless the situation was necessary. Just making the statement it's not my decision to make for someone else.

Regardless of whether or not the fetus can survive with out the mother's body, the point is that the fetus is not the mother's body. Aborting the fetus obviously has a direct effect on the mother's body, but the "it's my body" argument is not valid, as it is the body of the fetus upon which the action is being taken.

 

[Roustabout]

Was is not you and orange crush that debated for days on end that all morals inherently come from god?

Go back and read the argument. Maybe if you spent more time doing this than trying to think up your next one liner, you'd actually learn something.

We were arguing objective morality, and whether it exist. Now, if it does, then we can explore the theological implications. But again it's an ontological vs. epistemoligical deal. What is, verses how do we know. Much like the difference in ethics and morality.
What you are doing is attempting to poison the well and say that any position I have on a matter is not valid because I believe in God. That is exactly what you are doing and it's fallacious.

I find enjoyment in pointing out your inconsistensies.

Stating that you are pointing out inconsistencies is not actually doing so. Again, we are arguing a subject here. Abortion. I've presented some arguments, facts and evidence. I have NEVER invoked religion. You did. So, you are attacking my faith, and not the facts I've presented. 2+2=4. Would you agree with that fact, or am I wrong because I am a Christian?

It shows that you yourself are participating in shaping your own argument as you see fit depending on the debate at hand, even if it contradicts prior assertions.

You are welcome to show the contradiction. If it's there, it should be easy enough.

You can call me weak minded, I don't mind. It's akin to a child calling me a big dumb doo doo head. I just smile, pat you on the head, and send you on your way.

No Percy, I didn't simply call you weak minded. I illustrated it with examples (red herrings) from your own words. You attacked me to discredit the facts I brought to the debate. Yes, that is weak minded. Thanks for allowing me to clarify this for everyone else reading the thread. :salute:

 

[tumscalcium]

So you want the governemnt to come up with Net Worth guidelines on who can and cant have kids?

No. Everyone can have kids, it just shouldn't be my responsibility to pay for them.

 

[Roustabout]

At the time that an abortion would typically be done the fetus cannot survive without the mothers body. So that's where I get its her body.

I understand where you're coming from and my wife and I would never abort unless the situation was necessary. Just making the statement it's not my decision to make for someone else.

So, you agree that we should at the least outlaw abortions where the fetus can survive outside the womb? I'd consider that a minor victory.

 

[MercyPercy]

Regardless of whether or not the fetus can survive with out the mother's body, the point is that the fetus is not the mother's body. Aborting the fetus obviously has a direct effect on the mother's body, but the "it's my body" argument is not valid, as it is the body of the fetus upon which the action is being taken.

Let's address another major point that hasn't really been touched on get-out the practicality of criminalizing abortions.

The fact is, legal or not, people will still try and terminate pregnancies. That means a black market of shoddy health care for the girls instead of legitimate doctors operating without fear of prosecution. Making abortion illegal is impractical and unsafe for the parties involved.

And what happens when a girl drinks the magic potion to terminate her own pregnancy and gets caught? Are we going to send her to prison for life for murder?

Is that you people's solution?

 

[Roustabout]

Let's address another major point that hasn't really been touched on get-out the practicality of criminalizing abortions.

The fact is, legal or not, people will still try and terminate pregnancies. That means a black market of shoddy health care for the girls instead of legitimate doctors operating without fear of prosecution. Making abortion illegal is impractical and unsafe for the parties involved.

And what happens when a girl drinks the magic potion to terminate her own pregnancy and gets caught? Are we going to send her to prison for life for murder?

Is that you people's solution?

People are still going to murder and rape. So, should we provide them clinics where they can do it in a sanitary environment?

 

[hndog609]

Let's address another major point that hasn't really been touched on get-out the practicality of criminalizing abortions.

The fact is, legal or not, people will still try and terminate pregnancies. That means a black market of shoddy health care for the girls instead of legitimate doctors operating without fear of prosecution. Making abortion illegal is impractical and unsafe for the parties involved.

And what happens when a girl drinks the magic potion to terminate her own pregnancy and gets caught? Are we going to send her to prison for life for murder?

Is that you people's solution?

Sounds like you might be on board with the sterilization pending intent/fiscal responsibility side of the equation. If nobody even CAN get pregnant until it's intentional then that would make pretty much all your concerns moot, wouldn't it?

 

[MercyPercy]

People are still going to murder and rape. So, should we provide them clinics where they can do it in a sanitary environment?

There you go, equating abortion to murder and rape again.

It's like you're reading right out of volmav's playbook. Fantastic.

 

[MercyPercy]

Sounds like you might be on board with the sterilization pending intent/fiscal responsibility side of the equation. If nobody even CAN get pregnant until it's intentional then that would make pretty much all your concerns moot, wouldn't it?

People can sterilize themselves if they want. It's none of my business. I don't think they should be forced to.

 

[etmVol]

Let's address another major point that hasn't really been touched on get-out the practicality of criminalizing abortions.

The fact is, legal or not, people will still try and terminate pregnancies. That means a black market of shoddy health care for the girls instead of legitimate doctors operating without fear of prosecution. Making abortion illegal is impractical and unsafe for the parties involved.

And what happens when a girl drinks the magic potion to terminate her own pregnancy and gets caught? Are we going to send her to prison for life for murder?

Is that you people's solution?

People will continue to do what people do. It's whether or not we act as enablers. If I drink and drink, and kill someone, I go to jail. Yes? Your argument is akin to legalize drinking and driving so that when I kill someone, it's just part of the game, no extra punishment needed.

If girls don't want to have a baby, either don't have sex or take precautions (the morning after pill if also necessary).

 

[MercyPercy]

People will continue to do what people do. It's whether or not we act as enablers. If I drink and drink, and kill someone, I go to jail. Yes? Your argument is akin to legalize drinking and driving so that when I kill someone, it's just part of the game, no extra punishment needed.

If girls don't want to have a baby, either don't have sex or take precautions (the morning after pill if also necessary).

So, don't let me misquote you here, but yes, you would send said girl in question to prison for life.

Thanks. All I needed to know.

 

[etmVol]

There you go, equating abortion to murder and rape again.

It's like you're reading right out of volmav's playbook. Fantastic.

Abortion is murder, that's why we continue to make that point. There is a human life, growing inside its mother's womb. When it is aborted, that life is terminated. As it is not war, self-defense, or an accident, that pretty much only leaves murder.