Its my body,

#551
#551
USMC-TNVOL said:
You know what was meant. Your view is rape or incest isn’t means for abortion.

In all other cases, I think up abortion should be legal until 24 weeks, when they are usually considered viable.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t care what you think. I care about the facts. The point of pregnancy is to produce a viable child. The mother’s body will protect and nurture a developing child, even if the mother doesn’t want it. So, you want to violate that natural order.
 
#552
#552
Roustabout said:
I honestly don’t care what you think. I care about the facts. The point of pregnancy is to produce a viable child. The mother’s body will protect and nurture a developing child, even if the mother doesn’t want it. So, you want to violate that natural order.
Click to expand...

So? Guess we shouldn’t do vaccines then since that is unnatural. Abortion will happen whether you want it or not. It’s not your choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#555
#555
utvols88 said:
I'll say it. I am. An unjust act doesnt justify another, separate unjust act. I understand it's hard, traumatic and a terrible experience to be a victim of rape and I'm an advocate for severe punishment for rapists but the abortions due to that is significantly small and to justify a blanket authority to kill a baby based on that is asinine imo. I dont get my home broken into by Septic and then break into yours to recoup the tv that Sep stole. I would also steal his knives and forks so hes left with just spoons just to inconvenience him.

It is based on science and natural law. When a baby is formed, it is undeniably a separate human. Whether or not you value that human is inconsequential to the baby being a unique life
Click to expand...

Exactly. Can’t make someone else pay for its life for the horror created by another person
 
#556
#556
USMC-TNVOL said:
So? Guess we shouldn’t do vaccines then since that is unnatural. Abortion will happen whether you want it or not. It’s not your choice.
Click to expand...
Not even analogous and you’re equivocating the term.

More bad logic. Murder will happen whether you want it to or not.....

It’s obvious by your arguments that you’ve never really thought things through. You’re simply parroting bad arguments. You’re digging your heals in and attacking my position in when you ought to be trying to understand my position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#559
#559
AirVol said:
Cells that are living?
Click to expand...
All cells are living. That’s really not the point. To refer to what we now know about life and how it is developed, as a “clump,” is a seriously flawed argument. Everyone’s human journey starts the same way.
 
#560
#560
Roustabout said:
Not even analogous and you’re equivocating the term.

More bad logic. Murder will happen whether you want it to or not.....

It’s obvious by your arguments that you’ve never really thought things through. You’re simply parroting bad arguments. You’re digging your heals in and attacking my position in when you ought to be trying to understand my position.
Click to expand...

I don’t care what your position is. It’s only a “bad argument” because you disagree with it.
 
#563
#563
Roustabout said:
All cells are living. That’s really not the point. To refer to what we now know about life and how it is developed, as a “clump,” is a seriously flawed argument. Everyone’s human journey starts the same way.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that we start the same way is not relevant to my argument. That is, reproductive choice.
 
#565
#565
Septic said:
Sure, but that we start the same way is not relevant to my argument. That is, reproductive choice.
Click to expand...
It actually is important. Especially if we are establishing human rights. Rights have no basis if human life does not have value.
You are claiming a right, with no grounding of human rights. Courts change over time. Why is what the US court rules apply universally to the world? If the public opinion changes and court changes, are you OK with the law changing? I'm guessing no. The entire statement "reproductive rights" is couched to slant the argument. Rights dictate responsibility. I don't think anyone should be forced to get pregnant.

Newborns are not sentient in the way we are, yet we see this having a higher responsibility to care for and protect the child. Not a reason to kill the child or deny it human value or right. Who cares if you're viable? Are you saying people who are dependent on outside support aren't valuable, are less human and have no value?
Do you really think i haven't considered every possible objection. Every one you have mentioned has been answered, not on religious grounds, but on reason, logic and natural law.

Does a good mother starve her child? No.
Does a good mother neglect her child? No.
Does a good mother reject her child? No.

In all those cases civilized society would clearly rule that as a bad mother. Kill your developing child? Choice? Sadly, you likely won't see the problem here.
Your position degrades the human experience, the value of human life, the value and responsibility we have to care for the weak, undermines motherhood, and therefore pulls the rug out on any foundation for human rights.
 
#566
#566
utvols88 said:
Nope. Less than 1% is due to rape.
Click to expand...
I havent seen the actual numbers so I was making assumptions. Do you have a link to the actual numbers? I havent been able to find cause listed. Usually it's just demographics.
 
#567
#567
ajvol01 said:
Apparently not in Florida - at least not until this was signed.
Click to expand...
Weird. If they were consistent across the board I dont see a real issue.

And if this is being not consistent I take issue with it. Even though I am against the act.
 
#568
#568
Septic said:
A clump of cells mostly.
Click to expand...
You can define any human that way.

Yall are setting so many precedents it's not even funny.

Its seeing arguments like this that let's me understand how humans have accepted atrocities.
 
#569
#569
USMC-TNVOL said:
I don’t care what your position is. It’s only a “bad argument” because you disagree with it.
Click to expand...
No it's bad because you arent internally consistent.

You are mixing doses of logic with feeling/opinion and using what little logic is there to justify your opinion while claiming you are only making logical arguments.
 
#570
#570
Septic said:
Sure, but that we start the same way is not relevant to my argument. That is, reproductive choice.
Click to expand...
Wtf. More inconsistency.

How we start is part of reproduction. By the time those cells have formed an embryo the reproductive choice has already been made.

Women dont just decide or choose to be pregnant. They have to take part in some activity that leads to pregnancy. Ergo they have already expressed their reproductive choice.
 
#571
#571
LouderVol said:
You can define any human that way.

Yall are setting so many precedents it's not even funny.

Its seeing arguments like this that let's me understand how humans have accepted atrocities.
Click to expand...

No, I'm defining an embryo that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#572
#572
LouderVol said:
Wtf. More inconsistency.

How we start is part of reproduction. By the time those cells have formed an embryo the reproductive choice has already been made.

Women dont just decide or choose to be pregnant. They have to take part in some activity that leads to pregnancy. Ergo they have already expressed their reproductive choice.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that people have sex for reproduction purposes only?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#573
#573
LouderVol said:
No it's bad because you arent internally consistent.

You are mixing doses of logic with feeling/opinion and using what little logic is there to justify your opinion while claiming you are only making logical arguments.
Click to expand...

Abortion has everything to do with opinion and science. Just like you religious fanatics consider all abortion murder. So don’t tell my I’m mixing my views with opinions when you’re doing the exact same thing. At some point, depending on the person, the fetus is considered to have rights or only have rights after being born. There is no science that will tell you when rights should start.

Only the extreme people, like yourself, consider an embryo or human zygote destroyed to be considered murdered. If you’re saying a zygote or embryo have the same protections as someone already born, then why do not sperm and eggs have the same protections because of what they could become? Can’t have everyone spilling their seed on the ground like the Bible says, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#574
#574
Roustabout said:
It actually is important. Especially if we are establishing human rights. Rights have no basis if human life does not have value.
You are claiming a right, with no grounding of human rights. Courts change over time. Why is what the US court rules apply universally to the world? If the public opinion changes and court changes, are you OK with the law changing? I'm guessing no. The entire statement "reproductive rights" is couched to slant the argument. Rights dictate responsibility. I don't think anyone should be forced to get pregnant.

Newborns are not sentient in the way we are, yet we see this having a higher responsibility to care for and protect the child. Not a reason to kill the child or deny it human value or right. Who cares if you're viable? Are you saying people who are dependent on outside support aren't valuable, are less human and have no value?
Do you really think i haven't considered every possible objection. Every one you have mentioned has been answered, not on religious grounds, but on reason, logic and natural law.

Does a good mother starve her child? No.
Does a good mother neglect her child? No.
Does a good mother reject her child? No.

In all those cases civilized society would clearly rule that as a bad mother. Kill your developing child? Choice? Sadly, you likely won't see the problem here.
Your position degrades the human experience, the value of human life, the value and responsibility we have to care for the weak, undermines motherhood, and therefore pulls the rug out on any foundation for human rights.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should establish positions here, lest we keep talking past each other.

I don't believe a nonviable, non sentient 'embryo/fetus' is a "human", "child" or "baby". I also don't believe a child past about 20 weeks fits the non viable, non sentient definition and do believe abortion (aka late term) at that point is morally wrong and should be banned.

For the aforementioned embryo/fetus, the removal of the amalgamation of cells that could or would at some point grow into what you refer to as a 'baby, child or human' - is between a woman and her health care provider.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970
#575
#575
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top