Abortion thread (Page 5/43)
MidEngineManiac MAR 30, 06:19 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:


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?



Fact is, right now ONLY women have that option, and right.

Men are simply forced walking ATM's who happened to be sperm donors at one time.
theBDub MAR 30, 06:30 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:


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?



Oh, I understand your question, just not why you're asking me, as it is not connected at all to my stance. There is no logical bridge from my statements to your question, as I've already said we have a right to life. You asking me this question just shows you don't really understand the premise of the argument, that the children do have a right to life, but that they don't have a right to someone else's body to support that life. People willingly provide that life support for around 9 months at a time, and it's fantastic, but not provided by the baby's right to life.

"Killing unborn children" is only okay in that you can't force someone to donate their body to keep another alive. They're pulling the life support that their body is providing. Pulling life support of someone who can't survive without life support isn't murder, whether they're an adult or child. It will never be okay to kill a child that is alive without that life support, as that is murder. The question is ridiculous.

If there was a way to easily transfer the pregnancy to someone who would be willing to have the pregnancy, then we could do that instead. Right now, there isn't, so it's acceptable to have an abortion.
randye MAR 30, 11:18 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:


.....children do have a right to life, but that they don't have a right to someone else's body to support that life. People willingly provide that life support for around 9 months at a time, and it's fantastic, but not provided by the baby's right to life.




That right there is possibly one of THE MOST TWISTED and tortured pretzels of whack-job "logic" ever posted on this forum.

Obviously the "endowed by their Creator" part of one of our core founding documents of this nation isn't something so-called "Libertarians" believe in.

Moreover, UNITED STATES LAW, (Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). and 38 individual states laws say that you are dead, (pardon the pun), WRONG in your whackadoodle "logic".

If you murder a woman and that murder consequently results in the death of her unborn child, you are guilty of TWO murders. Accordingly, the law holds that the unborn child DOES have a "right to someone else's body to support it's life." .

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-31-2022).]

ray b MAR 31, 12:00 AM
tali-ban believes that also

I try NOT to share tali-ban ideals
slicknick MAR 31, 08:02 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:
Moreover, UNITED STATES LAW, (Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).



Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
theBDub MAR 31, 08:29 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:
That right there is possibly one of THE MOST TWISTED and tortured pretzels of whack-job "logic" ever posted on this forum.

Obviously the "endowed by their Creator" part of one of our core founding documents of this nation isn't something so-called "Libertarians" believe in.

Moreover, UNITED STATES LAW, (Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). and 38 individual states laws say that you are dead, (pardon the pun), WRONG in your whackadoodle "logic".

If you murder a woman and that murder consequently results in the death of her unborn child, you are guilty of TWO murders. Accordingly, the law holds that the unborn child DOES have a "right to someone else's body to support it's life." .




You are, once again, proving you can’t follow basic logic.

You have a right to terminate life supporting provided by your body to someone else. You cannot be forced by the government to donate organs, even temporarily.

You have a right to life. Your right to life does not dictate you have the right to my organs.

In the most blunt terms, a pregnant person aborting an unborn child is killing that person, but they have the right to do so because they have bodily autonomy. Someone killing that pregnant woman and unborn child does not have any rights that allow them to do so.

Your failure to comprehend basic logic is also not supported by any laws, as laws are not morality, and this thread is not “is abortion illegal,” but “is abortion wrong?” Do you need me to explain it any further?
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 31, 10:14 AM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

Sometimes, it wasn't a decision. Do you then believe abortion is okay in the event of rape?



I used to... I absolutely used to.

But now, I don't know if I feel this same way.


As I get older, I become more and more pro-life.
theBDub MAR 31, 10:45 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


I used to... I absolutely used to.

But now, I don't know if I feel this same way.


As I get older, I become more and more pro-life.



Thanks for understanding the point of view and logic behind it, even though we disagree.

It’s not an easy topic.

I remember, when I met my now-wife, she was pro-choice and I was pro-life. We agreed to not abort for any accidents because it was so important to me. Over time, my view on it changed.
WonderBoy MAR 31, 10:59 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

CHRISTIANS WANT TALI-BAN LIKE LAWS
to enfarce their religion's rules on all others
and have a long history of doing so


Your sick "cult" wants schools and Planned Parenthood to enforce your twisted crap without parental permission. Go around the LEGAL GUARDIANS and let the non-doctor with the liberal arts gender studies degree school nurse/health-teacher/orgasm-instructor warp their minds. Get'em young and impressionable. Your sick "cult" has a long history of doing so. Your sick "cult" also doesn't want the PUBLIC to know there are convicted sexual predators in their neighborhoods. Groom'n the young and impressionable. Just like Disney. Sick.

But that's right, this new US Supreme Court Justice will abolish the whole idea/DEFINITION (leftists need to change definitions of words) of what a sexual predator is. Sickos. Change the definition so it's more acceptable and inclusive.
P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C

You don't seem to realize that this topic goes right back to protecting children. Born and unborn. A concept your sick "cult" lacks with the neanderthal size brain that hadn't evolved enough not to know they shouldn't have the "if it bleeds it breeds" mentality.
A-N-I-M-A-L-S...

This also divulges into the other topic of School Choice. Your sick "cult" has "a long history" of not wanting that to happen. Your sick "cult" needs those PUBLIC tax $$$'s to go back to the sick "cult" and it's Teachers Unions. They want the community village one group-think philosophy to raise ALL CHILDREN. So Your sick "cult" will do all they can to block it. See the pattern?

Do the police know your ankle bracelet is off? Oh, my bad. Does your liberal arts social worker know your ankle bracelet is off?

quote
no one is making anyone have an abortion
it is a option for those who want to do so
but your side wants NO CHOICE NO FREEDOM


There are limits to freedom. Your sick "cult" rides the laws to the point of just within legal limits. How many OPTIONS do you need? How many PLAN-B's? Has your brain evolved to the point of awareness that you're just making more and more excuses?
Your sick "cult" likes to talk healthcare, and mental healthcare, but that same "cult" creates the health problems.

If you're fat and morbidly obese, don't cut down on the sweets, don't change your sick lifestyle. Hell no. Let's BURDEN THE PUBLIC. You'll just have TAX PAYER FUNDED "Affordable" Care Act pay for YOUR bad judgement, YOUR bad choice. Chaos.
Choices have consequences, but your sick "cult", ALWAYS wants a FINAL SOLLUTION get out of jail free card to save them.
P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C


quote
THAT TO ME IS THE TRUE COLORS OF THE NUT -CONNED


You have no love for anything. Just all pleasure. A society in chaos. You want to "nut" where/when/who you feel, including minors. THAT is your "cult".


Get off you're damn high horse about tali-ban, religion and cults because YOU obviously share the mindset of one.
2.5 MAR 31, 12:06 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:


Oh, I understand your question, just not why you're asking me, as it is not connected at all to my stance. There is no logical bridge from my statements to your question, as I've already said we have a right to life. You asking me this question just shows you don't really understand the premise of the argument, that the children do have a right to life, but that they don't have a right to someone else's body to support that life. People willingly provide that life support for around 9 months at a time, and it's fantastic, but not provided by the baby's right to life.

"Killing unborn children" is only okay in that you can't force someone to donate their body to keep another alive. They're pulling the life support that their body is providing. Pulling life support of someone who can't survive without life support isn't murder, whether they're an adult or child. It will never be okay to kill a child that is alive without that life support, as that is murder. The question is ridiculous.

If there was a way to easily transfer the pregnancy to someone who would be willing to have the pregnancy, then we could do that instead. Right now, there isn't, so it's acceptable to have an abortion.



Actually my question gets right to the point of your view. I dont understand why you dont see that, or answer it. The specifics still go unanswered. Does anyone else understand my question?