Abortion Rights

[LouderVol]

Woman is breastfeeding baby. Man walks up and stabs baby in head and kills it.

You’re cool with that from a legal standpoint? You just find it repugnant?

its not murder in his book. it would be like stabbing their tablet in his world.

 

[LouderVol]

So, theoretically, I take it you would be completely fine if someone wanted to fertilize as many eggs as they want, over and over again, for the sole purpose of harvesting embryonic stem cells? This is done, btw, in the blastocytic stage, before uterus implantation.

yes, I think stem cell research have a very viable and promising future.

most stem cell work comes from living donors, the rest dead, now if they were kidnapping women to do this I would have issue.

 

[Septic]

Woman is breastfeeding baby. Man walks up and stabs baby in head and kills it.

You’re cool with that from a legal standpoint? You just find it repugnant?

Is the breastfeeding part just to help with the visuals or nah?

 

[tumscalcium]

Is the breastfeeding part just to help with the visuals or nah?

Nah. I was picturing a woman with a child and my mind naturally went toward her breasts. Breast feeding does not turn me on, but breasts sure do.
Breastfeeding just seemed a little more personal with child.

I could have gone with sittin in a stroller.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I see it as a property crime. And, I actually think we can be morally justified in putting someone away, for life, or even sentencing them to death for some property crimes.

So then she could have simply sold the baby to the man instead of letting him kill it?

 

[therealUT]

So then she could have simply sold the baby to the man instead of letting him kill it?

Yeah, why not? I see nothing morally wrong with selling your own babies.

 

[rjd970]

So what I have gathered from some of the players in this thread on when rights outweigh those of the mother (corrections are welcomed if I'm wrong):

Roust - conception
Louder - implantation
rjd970 - at brain activity and capacity to feel pain
TRUT - sometime around toddler age

Not sure why, but I find that interesting.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

So, you turn on the news tonight and you see a report about children being slaughtered in Syria.

You wake up tomorrow morning to find that your car has been torched.

Which are you more pissed off and upset about?

If you say the children that were slaughtered in Syria, then I'm going to assume you are simply lying to save face.

So, you step outside and some idiot has a gun in hand and says they are either going to repeatedly shoot your neighbor's kid, your cat, or your car... and the choice is yours.

Which are you going to choose?

If you say the kid then I'm going to assume you are simply lying to save face.

 

[rjd970]

yes, I think stem cell research have a very viable and promising future.

most stem cell work comes from living donors, the rest dead, now if they were kidnapping women to do this I would have issue.

:good!:

 

[therealUT]

So, you step outside and some idiot has a gun in hand and says they are either going to repeatedly shoot your neighbor's kid, your cat, or your car... and the choice is yours.

Which are you going to choose?

If you say the kid then I'm going to assume you are simply lying to save face.

I'm saving the kid. But, I'm saving the kid due to a great many factors.

First, the man who says they will shoot either the kid or my cat is the man who cannot be trusted to keep his word.

Second, were I to choose my cat, I cannot trust that my neighbor will not seek vengeance against me.

But, if you were stipulate that my neighbor would not seek vengeance against me and that the man would only shoot the kid and then move on, I'd choose for him to shoot the kid.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I'm saving the kid. But, I'm saving the kid due to a great many factors.

First, the man who says they will shoot either the kid or my cat is the man who cannot be trusted to keep his word.

Second, were I to choose my cat, I cannot trust that my neighbor will not seek vengeance against me.

But, if you were stipulate that my neighbor would not seek vengeance against me and that the man would only shoot the kid and then move on, I'd choose for him to shoot the kid.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

because by the time you can abort (can't be detected until it is embedded in the uterus) is has gone beyond a clump of cells. also I still very much doubt too many abortions happen within the first 2 weeks. again this gets overlooked so often its comical. People always ask for a point, for me it is that, when the woman becomes a mom, because at that point the fetus is dependent on the mother.

what happens when you remove that fetus, it dies right? Thats the point right? To live autonomously sure sounds like you don't want to deal with another life. you gave up that right when you had sex, and yes I place the same restriction on the dad. people should be held accountable for their actions, I don't care if its an oops or not, its a life. everyone keeps wanting to use other terms (clump of cells) to avoid dealing with the reality of the situation.

those gestating cells are a different life form from the mom. its not just her body. no where else does the "oops" factor come into play. Officer, I wasn't planning on getting drunk and getting a DUI. I was just having 1 drink, honest. then my friends talked me into more. so its not my fault. doesn't fly. vehicular manslaughter. your rights stop at someone else's.

You are confusing responsibility for one's actions with forcing someone to suffer damage to their body and possible death to incubate another being to a possible healthy birth. DUI has zero application. Unless you are saying that once somebody takes a sip of booze they should be forced to get progressively more drunk for nine months at which time they are presented with the bill which they are forced to pay over 18 years.


You are placing more value on a clump of cells than someone who is living by forcing them to be the incubation chamber for that clump of cells and then to be responsible financially, emotionally and otherwise for the clump of cells.

My personal opinion is that nobody should be forced to incubate the clump of cells within themselves. They should be free to induce labor at any time. Why should the clump of cells force them to surrender autonomy over their own body?

 

[rjd970]

Why?

From TRUT standpoint of a child being property until a certain age, the child is the only thing in that scenario that is not his property.

Not saying I agree, but it's consistent.

What's not consistent is placing a certain value on human life, yet being more upset about a torched car than children dying in some distant, far off war somewhere.

 

[roosterjbh]

I'm saving the kid. But, I'm saving the kid due to a great many factors.

First, the man who says they will shoot either the kid or my cat is the man who cannot be trusted to keep his word.

Second, were I to choose my cat, I cannot trust that my neighbor will not seek vengeance against me.

But, if you were stipulate that my neighbor would not seek vengeance against me and that the man would only shoot the kid and then move on, I'd choose for him to shoot the kid.

Jesus Christ

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Why?

From TRUT standpoint of a child being property until a certain age, the child is the only thing in that scenario that is not his property.

Not saying I agree, but it's consistent.

What's not consistent is placing a certain value on human life, yet being more upset about a torched car than children dying in some distant, far off war somewhere.

You are making a false assumption as to the child being property, as that was not part of Trut's initial post nor his response.

As to why I don't believe him? Simple.

I don't believe anyone of sound mind would choose to have a child (a living being) repeatedly shot when a realistic option is to have one's car shot, which could easily be repaired or replaced by insurance... or by the neighbor who is more than pleased that you did not choose their child.

And I do believe Trut is of sound mind, which is why I believe he is lying to save face.

 

[rjd970]

You are making a false assumption as to the child being property, as that was not part of Trut's initial post nor his response.

As to why I don't believe him? Simple.

I don't believe anyone of sound mind would choose to have a child (a living being) repeatedly shot when a realistic option is to have one's car shot, which could easily be repaired or replaced by insurance... or by the neighbor who is more than pleased that you did not choose their child.

And I do believe Trut is of sound mind, which is why I believe he is lying to save face.

Just to re-iterate, in a realistic scenario, this is what TRUT said:

I'm saving the kid. But, I'm saving the kid due to a great many factors.

First, the man who says they will shoot either the kid or my cat is the man who cannot be trusted to keep his word.

Second, were I to choose my cat, I cannot trust that my neighbor will not seek vengeance against me.

But, if you were stipulate that my neighbor would not seek vengeance against me and that the man would only shoot the kid and then move on, I'd choose for him to shoot the kid.

The rest of it is a hypothetical, where he is being consistent.

Again, I may not agree, but not sure why you are finding this so unbelievable.

 

[LouderVol]

You are confusing responsibility for one's actions with forcing someone to suffer damage to their body and possible death to incubate another being to a possible healthy birth. DUI has zero application. Unless you are saying that once somebody takes a sip of booze they should be forced to get progressively more drunk for nine months at which time they are presented with the bill which they are forced to pay over 18 years.


You are placing more value on a clump of cells than someone who is living by forcing them to be the incubation chamber for that clump of cells and then to be responsible financially, emotionally and otherwise for the clump of cells.

My personal opinion is that nobody should be forced to incubate the clump of cells within themselves. They should be free to induce labor at any time. Why should the clump of cells force them to surrender autonomy over their own body?

pretty sure there are plenty of ways to not get pregnant. sex doesn't have to finish inside. condoms are pretty effective, no problem with the so called morning after pills, etc etc. to me thats more than wetting your whistle on an O'Doules.

yes, I have already said I place more importance on the life of that clump of cells (try baby see how comfortable you are). what if I was to demean the woman in a similar fashion. she is also just a clump of cells, why does her right for fun matter more than another clump of cells right to live?

the cells did nothing themselves. the woman, and man, acted. they did it to themselves. you are acting like the baby raped the woman.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Yeah, why not? I see nothing morally wrong with selling your own babies.

You are just being argumentative.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Just to re-iterate, in a realistic scenario, this is what TRUT said:

The rest of it is a hypothetical, where he is being consistent.

Again, I may not agree, but not sure why you are finding this so unbelievable.

I'm honestly not sure if you are purposely being selective, or if you lack comprehension skills.

Everything in this discussion is a hypothetical. However, what Trut said is that he "would save the kid" as long as the shooter did not continue to shoot the other two, and as long as the neighbor did not seek vengeance against him.

Stipulating that neither of those would happen, Trut's choice was to repeatedly shoot the kid. In other words, he would rather have his neighbor's kid potentially murdered than see his car get damaged.

Reading is simple.

 

[therealUT]

You are making a false assumption as to the child being property, as that was not part of Trut's initial post nor his response.

As to why I don't believe him? Simple.

I don't believe anyone of sound mind would choose to have a child (a living being) repeatedly shot when a realistic option is to have one's car shot, which could easily be repaired or replaced by insurance... or by the neighbor who is more than pleased that you did not choose their child.

And I do believe Trut is of sound mind, which is why I believe he is lying to save face.

I don't give up all my valuable assets to assist getting children out of Syria. I am making real decisions of my car over their lives.

 

[therealUT]

You are just being argumentative.

Not at all. My little sister is adopted from China. My parents paid over ten grand. I'd much rather her parents were able to simply sell her.

Moreover, I'd much rather any parent who would willingly sell their child, if they could, would sell their child. I imagine such parents would be much more awful than most who would buy the child.

 

[rjd970]

I'm honestly not sure if you are purposely being selective, or if you lack comprehension skills.

Everything in this discussion is a hypothetical. However, what Trut said is that he "would save the kid" as long as the shooter did not continue to shoot the other two, and as long as the neighbor did not seek vengeance against him.

Stipulating that neither of those would happen, Trut's choice was to repeatedly shoot the kid. In other words, he would rather have his neighbor's kid potentially murdered than see his car get damaged.

Reading is simple.

Far be it from me to defend a position I don't agree with, but look, you said this:

I don't believe anyone of sound mind would choose to have a child (a living being) repeatedly shot when a realistic option is to have one's car shot, which could easily be repaired or replaced by insurance... or by the neighbor who is more than pleased that you did not choose their child.

...and now you are saying this:

Everything in this discussion is a hypothetical. However, what Trut said is that he "would save the kid" as long as the shooter did not continue to shoot the other two, and as long as the neighbor did not seek vengeance against him.

Realistically, the neighbor is going to be pissed. So he is saving the kid. Hypothetically, if he wasn't, then the position is consistent.

Reading is simple, and that is exactly what I'm doing. Moving that target back and forth is not my comprehension problem.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

pretty sure there are plenty of ways to not get pregnant. sex doesn't have to finish inside. condoms are pretty effective, no problem with the so called morning after pills, etc etc. to me thats more than wetting your whistle on an O'Doules.

yes, I have already said I place more importance on the life of that clump of cells (try baby see how comfortable you are). what if I was to demean the woman in a similar fashion. she is also just a clump of cells, why does her right for fun matter more than another clump of cells right to live?

the cells did nothing themselves. the woman, and man, acted. they did it to themselves. you are acting like the baby raped the woman.

I am glad you asked. Her right to control her body takes precedent because the clump of cells has no ability to state a preference or the ability to exert control over its own body. It requires some third party, in this case you, to state that its preferences should trump that of the host body.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Far be it from me to defend a position I don't agree with, but look, you said this:

...and now you are saying this:

Realistically, the neighbor is going to be pissed. So he is saving the kid. Hypothetically, if he wasn't, then the position is consistent.

Reading is simple, and that is exactly what I'm doing. Moving that target back and forth is not my comprehension problem.

Again... the whole scenario is a hypothetical. Using the word "realistic" as it applies to one of the options does not alter the hypothetical which seems to be what you are suggesting.

The neighbor is not going to be pissed, because it has been stipulated (by Trut's own statement) that the neighbor would not take vengeance. So in the hypothetical, it is a realistic belief that the neighbor will not be pissed. How is that not clear???

And when you have three options in a hypothetical question, any of them could realistically be chosen. It is not realistic, however, that I could choose option four because it was obviously never an option.

You are using a very narrow definition of the word "realistic" to try and force a perspective that clearly is not what was stated. Comprehension and context are your friends.

 

[rjd970]

Again... the whole scenario is a hypothetical. Using the word "realistic" as it applies to one of the options does not alter the hypothetical which seems to be what you are suggesting.

The neighbor is not going to be pissed, because it has been stipulated (by Trut's own statement) that the neighbor would not take vengeance. So in the hypothetical, it is a realistic belief that the neighbor will not be pissed. How is that not clear???

And when you have three options in a hypothetical question, any of them could realistically be chosen. It is not realistic, however, that I could choose option four because it was obviously never an option.

You are using a very narrow definition of the word "realistic" to try and force a perspective that clearly is not what was stated. Comprehension and context are your friends.

But it absolutely alters how one would answer based on the given options, and you know it.

In the hypothetical, if no one is pissed, nobody will take vengeance, etc...according to TRUTs assumption of a toddler age and younger child being property, his position is consistent. Everything in that hypothetical is property, and the car is the only thing that is his property, so he is saving it first...like most of us would. IF the child is viewed as property, that is 100% consistent and there is zero reason not to believe him.

In the real world, however, it probably won't go down that way, and he is saving the kid first.

This. Is. Not. Hard.

You gave a hypothetical to try and corner TRUT into hypocrisy, TRUT answered it in a fully consistent way, and instead of accepting it for what it is, you call him a lier because it didn't work out the way you wanted.

I think of someone's pre-toddler age child as more that property no matter what age, just like you. But there is no reason at all to believe TRUT is lying and there is no inconsistency in what he is saying.