Roe vs Wade Overturned

#2,101
#2,101
Vol8188 said:
What makes the right “superior”? You can’t kill me. Does that mean I have superior rights?

And not it’s not “potential”. It’s real. It’s alive. It’s human.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the twists and turns these goobers will go through when you try to discuss the perpetual victimhood of some people.

Who is highest on the hierarchy of the oppressed? Right now they're all on about women (which weeks ago they could not define).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#2,102
#2,102
ClearwaterVol said:
And women still wouldn't after a certain point.
Click to expand...
You laid the threshold of autonomy as reasoning to allow abortion. I'm stating that we do not have autonomy over our bodies. Why should this be any different than other scenarios where we aren't afforded autonomy and have to adhere to guidelines?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#2,103
#2,103
ClearwaterVol said:
No, until it's actually born it is a potential person.

I cannot kill you, but your existence doesn't endanger mine or force me to take responsibility for your life.
Click to expand...

You’re arguing the definition of personhood. But what I’m stating is it is not potentially alive nor potentially human. It is clearly both.

You guys always go to the rape and endangerment yet they encompass <1% of all abortions.

So your support for abortion comes down to an economic thing? People shouldn’t take responsibility for their actions?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc
#2,104
#2,104
KB5252 said:
You laid the threshold of autonomy as reasoning to allow abortion. I'm stating that we do not have autonomy over our bodies. Why should this be any different than other scenarios where we aren't afforded autonomy and have to adhere to guidelines?
Click to expand...

Provide examples of what you would like me to respond to. and my argument is primarily based upon rights not body autonomy.
 
#2,106
#2,106
Vol8188 said:
You’re arguing the definition of personhood. But what I’m stating is it is not potentially alive nor potentially human. It is clearly both.

You guys always go to the rape and endangerment yet they encompass <1% of all abortions.

So you support for abortion comes down to an economic thing? People shouldn’t take responsibility for their actions?
Click to expand...

It is potentially a person. Until a live birth it is not.

My comment, "I cannot kill you, but your existence doesn't endanger mine or force me to take responsibility for your life." My comment has nothing to do with rape or economics.

There simply is no debate that pregnancy alone forces a woman to accept risks to her health up to and including death. There is also no debate that pregnancy forces a woman to accept complete responsibility for the health and well being of the fetus. In your scenario I am killing you, but your existence does not pose a danger to my health nor I am burdened with the responsibility of your health and well being.
 
#2,108
#2,108
ButchPlz said:
Reminds me of the twists and turns these goobers will go through when you try to discuss the perpetual victimhood of some people.

Who is highest on the hierarchy of the oppressed? Right now they're all on about women (which weeks ago they could not define).
Click to expand...

king-felix.gif
 
#2,109
#2,109
ClearwaterVol said:
It is potentially a person. Until a live birth it is not.

My comment, "I cannot kill you, but your existence doesn't endanger mine or force me to take responsibility for your life." My comment has nothing to do with rape or economics.

There simply is no debate that pregnancy alone forces a woman to accept risks to her health up to and including death. There is also no debate that pregnancy forces a woman to accept complete responsibility for the health and well being of the fetus. In your scenario I am killing you, but your existence does not pose a danger to my health nor I am burdened with the responsibility of your health and well being.
Click to expand...

“Take responsibility for your life” is an economic argument.

They’re all more likely to die in a car crash than to die during birth. Being alive is a risk for death.

No one is banning abortions when the woman is endangered and it represents less than 1% of abortions. Why do you keep arguing for things outside of the point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#2,111
#2,111
ClearwaterVol said:
Provide examples of what you would like me to respond to. and my argument is primarily based upon rights not body autonomy.
Click to expand...
What rights? Name one body part you can go to a doctor and have removed surgically because it inconveniences you?

Personally I am not against abortion but for ethical reasons there should be a hard stop for fetuses past x weeks (that part is debatable) unless in cases of rape, incest or serious health threat to mother.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#2,112
#2,112
Vol8188 said:
“Take responsibility for your life” is an economic argument.

They’re all more likely to die in a car crash than to die during birth. Being alive is a risk for death.

No one is banning abortions when the woman is endangered and it represents less than 1% of abortions. Why do you keep arguing for things outside of the point?
Click to expand...

Slow down. You're not focusing on what I am saying.

Taking responsibility for a life is not only economic. Far more encompassing than that.

I am not talking about abortions when a woman's life is endangered. My comment is regarding the forcing of a risk upon a woman that has the potential to kill her.

There simply is no debate that pregnancy alone forces a woman to accept risks to her health up to and including death. There is also no debate that pregnancy forces a woman to accept complete responsibility for the health and well being of the fetus. In your scenario I am killing you, but your existence does not pose a danger to my health like a fetus does to a woman nor I am burdened with the responsibility of your health and well being like you want to burden a woman with.

As for your car analogy. There is no law forcing me to drive, correct?
 
#2,113
#2,113
KB5252 said:
What rights? Name one body part you can go to a doctor and have removed surgically because it inconveniences you?

Personally I am not against abortion but for ethical reasons there should be a hard stop for fetuses past x weeks (year part is debatable) unless in cars of rape, incest or serious health threat to mother.
Click to expand...

Your tits.
 
#2,114
#2,114
KB5252 said:
What rights? Name one body part you can go to a doctor and have removed surgically because it inconveniences you?

Personally I am not against abortion but for ethical reasons there should be a hard stop for fetuses past x weeks (year part is debatable) unless in cars of rape, incest or serious health threat to mother.
Click to expand...

Or when the fetus is not viable. Cannot think of a more painful thing for a woman to go through than being forced to carry a dead baby to term.
 
#2,117
#2,117
ClearwaterVol said:
Slow down. You're not focusing on what I am saying.

Taking responsibility for a life is not only economic. Far more encompassing than that.

I am not talking about abortions when a woman's life is endangered. My comment is regarding the forcing of a risk upon a woman that has the potential to kill her.

There simply is no debate that pregnancy alone forces a woman to accept risks to her health up to and including death. There is also no debate that pregnancy forces a woman to accept complete responsibility for the health and well being of the fetus. In your scenario I am killing you, but your existence does not pose a danger to my health like a fetus does to a woman nor I am burdened with the responsibility of your health and well being like you want to burden a woman with.

As for your car analogy. There is no law forcing me to drive, correct?
Click to expand...
That's another big point of disagreement between the camps.

Assuming that the woman was not raped, she consented to an activity that she knew, even with contraception being properly used, could result in a fetus forming inside her with all the associated potential health risks. You've already said that you believe that a woman having sex does not mean she consented to that possibility. It is another point where the 2 camps really have nothing left to discuss after that.
 
#2,120
#2,120
Those who believe a woman should be able to abort a fetus for any reason, at any time should also be willing to concede that the father can choose not to be a part of or support that childs life at any time, for any reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SD189
#2,121
#2,121
ClearwaterVol said:
Or when the fetus is not viable. Cannot think of a more painful thing for a woman to go through than being forced to carry a dead baby to term.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely, but your earlier comments imply that you don't believe any fetus/child is viable until it can survive outside of the womb. So why bring up that circumstance to make your point?
 
#2,122
#2,122
05_never_again said:
That's another big point of disagreement between the camps.

Assuming that the woman was not raped, she consented to an activity that she knew, even with contraception being properly used, could result in a fetus forming inside her with all the associated potential health risks. You've already said that you believe that a woman having sex does not mean she consented to that possibility. It is another point where the 2 camps really have nothing left to discuss after that.
Click to expand...

The parties are aware of the risks, but that doesn't mean that she should be left unable to rectify the situation.
 
#2,123
#2,123
KB5252 said:
Those who believe a woman should be able to abort a fetus for any reason, at any time should also be willing to concede that the father can choose not to be a part of or support that childs life at any time, for any reason.
Click to expand...

The man can ditch all responsibilities but the financial. And if he's a bum, he'll ditch that too.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top