 
     |
| Abortion thread (Page 4/43) |
|
randye
|
MAR 29, 05:45 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Fats:
Why do you think it's OK to impose YOUR morality on others?
|
|
Moral relativism is a hallmark of childish Leftist belief.
When he calls the police to report a crime or tries to file a lawsuit he doesn't expect to be told: "Sorry, but we can't impose your morality on others."
The real core of the entire abortion issue though is the refusal to take personal responsibility for your own actions.
Having refused to take personal responsibility to not make a baby to begin with, the total refusal to take personal responsibility then moves on to destroying that human life in order to not take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-29-2022).]
|
|
|
|
WonderBoy
|
MAR 29, 10:54 PM
|
|
It all comes down to this:
They're called Reproductive Organs FOR A REASON. Follow the "Science"/Biology/Anatomy.
You don't just piss out of them. I don't know of any school that doesn't teach this. From health class (unless allowed to participate by parental exemption) to basic biology class. It's what separates us (humans) from the animal kingdom. We (humans) know what they are and what they're for, animals do not. Some humans I guess don't have brains. Guess they never "evolved"...
Soon the followers of the party of total lunacy, will say the ovaries and testicles are the only reproductive organs.
This is how far morally society has sunk.
- "The Pill" wasn't good enough
- "The Patch" wasn't good enough
- "Morning After aka PLAN-B Pill" wasn't good enough
- "Communication" with ones partner about her cycle wasn't good enough
- Coming soon, male birth control pill. But even THAT won't be good enough
Soooo, when in doubt, suck "it" out. When you damn well know what "it" is. There is a certain political tilt that loves to change the definitions of words to enforce/promote a narrative (and you know who they are). Sheeeatt, a hundred years or so everyone will be sterile.
Some people just want a get out of jail free card.
A society of just excuses and NO personal responsibility, is chaos which sinks into anarchy. Especially when dealing with innocent life. Notice how most E.D. commercials talk about "performance"(they're not just targeting older people)? That's how far we've sunk. That's a narrative being driven right there.
Fat's is correct đź‘Ť. Since Government involvement in religion/marriage, things went to crap. Some call that "Progress".[This message has been edited by WonderBoy (edited 03-29-2022).]
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
MAR 30, 12:39 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:
I really dont care either way, I'm not female.
|
|
You don't care if babies are killed in the womb, how about outside the womb? Is there a line where you care?[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-30-2022).]
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
MAR 30, 12:48 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by WonderBoy:
A society of excuses and NO personal responsibility, is chaos which sinks into anarchy. Especially when dealing with innocent life.
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
this is exactly where the ''we want less government''
BREAKS INTO YOU MUST DO AS WE SAY
WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS OK TO IMPOSE YOUR MORALITY ON OTHERS
|
|
Ray, it's not all or nothing, nothing in this sense would be Anarchy.
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
MAR 30, 01:19 PM
|
|
I was against abortion for a long time, because I view the fetus as independent life from the prospective mother, and we all have a right to life.
However, I've since come to recognize there are other rights that supersede that. I don't remember the name of the argument itself, I know it has one, but it was published in A Defense of Abortion:
| quote | | [Imagine] you wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you–we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months…” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? |
|
Simply put, though the fetus has a right to life, its right to life does not supersede the pregnant person's right to bodily autonomy. I cannot be forced to give you one of my organs, just as you cannot be forced to give me blood. We all have full bodily autonomy and the right to not donate organs, even if only temporary.
It could end there, but of course reality is a bit more complex. There is a period after birth where a child is still dependent on the parents for survival, and if the parents don't keep the baby alive, that would be child neglect. However, the parents still have autonomy, because at that point, they can relinquish their parental responsibilities at any time through adoption. They cannot transfer the fetus to another womb, else that would be preferable to abortion. The only asterisk to this is that, today, they can't do this in a vacuum because if only one parent does this, they're still required to provide child support. I also think our child support system is broken.
I don't only believe abortion is a clear right due to bodily autonomy, I also believe each parent should have a period where they can relinquish all parental and financial responsibility, and at that point, the other parent can still decide if they choose to keep the child or not. (The reason I say parent neutrally is because if a man wants the child without any financial or parental support, I don't believe his want supersedes the woman's rights to bodily autonomy, but I do think she should be able to relinquish responsibility and still carry to term. The more common scenario would undoubtedly be a man relinquishes responsibility, and the woman at that point can decide between 1. Having the child without any father support, or 2. Aborting the baby because that means she can no longer support the child).
To summarize, I believe we all have bodily autonomy that supersedes someone else's rights to life. I also believe the system as it exists is flawed and doesn't provide equal rights to all parties.[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 03-30-2022).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
MAR 30, 01:42 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
Simply put, though the fetus has a right to life, its right to life does not supersede the pregnant person's right to bodily autonomy. I cannot be forced to give you one of my organs, just as you cannot be forced to give me blood. We all have full bodily autonomy and the right to not donate organs, even if only temporary.
|
|
Yeah, that has been the only valid argument for me in defense of abortion, but for me... I look at it from the perspective of decisions have consequences. The actions you take (if irresponsible), won't always bite you in the ass, but sometimes they do. When it comes to life... you have a responsibility.
What IS in the control of government (state governments, in my opinion), is the right to deny abortion providers from performing abortions, punish women who give birth and abandon their babies, and holding fathers accountable for their end of this process.
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
MAR 30, 02:43 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Yeah, that has been the only valid argument for me in defense of abortion, but for me... I look at it from the perspective of decisions have consequences. The actions you take (if irresponsible), won't always bite you in the ass, but sometimes they do. When it comes to life... you have a responsibility.
What IS in the control of government (state governments, in my opinion), is the right to deny abortion providers from performing abortions, punish women who give birth and abandon their babies, and holding fathers accountable for their end of this process. |
|
Sometimes, it wasn't a decision. Do you then believe abortion is okay in the event of rape?
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
MAR 30, 04:07 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
I also believe the system as it exists is flawed and doesn't provide equal rights to all parties.
|
|
I can't let that conflict just sit. For sure not with my own opinion.
What do you say to this?
In the world of scenarios, does multiple people making multiple bad choices through time mean killing unborn children is now ok? Later down the road would it be ok to kill if they are less than 1 year old (12 months outside the womb)? 1 month? Maybe the elderly?
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
MAR 30, 05:22 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 2.5:
I can't let that conflict just sit. For sure not with my own opinion.
What do you say to this?
In the world of scenarios, does multiple people making multiple bad choices through time mean killing unborn children is now ok? Later down the road would it be ok to kill if they are less than 1 year old (12 months outside the womb)? 1 month? Maybe the elderly? |
|
It's not a conflict. It's a statement. My opinion on abortion upholds bodily autonomy; I have other related opinions as well.
I don't know where your question comes from, since in my post, I start with the statement that I believe we have a right to life. I think you may misunderstand my point of view just because you don't support our right to bodily autonomy. If anything, as we progress in medical science, the time for pulling the plug on unborn children should go down. In my opinion, if the woman elects to stop carrying the child, and the child can survive without the woman, there is no conflict of rights - the child should be removed and placed on life support. So, over time, as we get better at supporting the life of unborn children outside of a womb, the number of abortions would go down.
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
MAR 30, 05:55 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
It's not a conflict. It's a statement. My opinion on abortion upholds bodily autonomy; I have other related opinions as well.
I don't know where your question comes from, since in my post, I start with the statement that I believe we have a right to life. I think you may misunderstand my point of view just because you don't support our right to bodily autonomy. If anything, as we progress in medical science, the time for pulling the plug on unborn children should go down. In my opinion, if the woman elects to stop carrying the child, and the child can survive without the woman, there is no conflict of rights - the child should be removed and placed on life support. So, over time, as we get better at supporting the life of unborn children outside of a womb, the number of abortions would go down. |
|
It is a statement yes of your stance, your decision what your opinion will be, which is in conflict with itself. IMO. You had to decide the child was not important.
I dont understand your non understanding of my question. It seems spelled out plainly. I added clarifiers:
In the world of scenarios, does multiple people making multiple bad choices through time (I.E. the reasons they get pregnant, the reasons it may be hard to raise the kid they created) mean killing unborn children is now ok? Later down the road would it be ok to kill if they are less than 1 year old (12 months outside the womb)? 1 month? Maybe the elderly? Would your opinion just be that you believe the system as it exists is flawed and you've come to believe there are other rights that supersede the child's?
You said " I also believe each parent should have a period where they can relinquish all parental and financial responsibility"
That is giving your child up for adoption isn't it?
|
|
|
|