 
     |
| Abortion thread (Page 6/43) |
|
theBDub
|
MAR 31, 12:35 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 2.5:
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? |
|
I did respond to your question. I said it would be murder and will always be unacceptable.
|
|
|
WonderBoy
|
MAR 31, 04:43 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
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. |
|
What made you change your mind?
Again, REPRODUCTION ORGANS all part of the REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. It's not an "accident" when you know what the intended consequence is. Get out of jail free! 2nd chance, 3rd chance, 4th chance, etc. The game of chance... though this form of Russian Roulette doesn't involve YOUR brains being blown/sucked out.
Life: it's NOT a game.
Mentally sick society.  Devolution
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
MAR 31, 05:00 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
"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. |
|
Sorry you did answer, I was missing it within all the conflict it creates in reason, for me personally.
Because technology hasnt caught up, it is ok to kill an unborn child?
Because it takes sacrifice to have a child, it is ok to kill that child?
You'd consider killing the unborn baby you created the same as pulling the plug on someone who can no longer live via medical life support, for example someone who was in a horrible accident?[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-31-2022).]
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
MAR 31, 06:20 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by WonderBoy:
What made you change your mind?
Again, REPRODUCTION ORGANS all part of the REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. It's not an "accident" when you know what the intended consequence is. Get out of jail free! 2nd chance, 3rd chance, 4th chance, etc. The game of chance... though this form of Russian Roulette doesn't involve YOUR brains being blown/sucked out.
Life: it's NOT a game.
Mentally sick society. Devolution |
|
The violinist argument (I knew it was a simple name!) I posted on the first page single-handedly turned me over. The logic was sound enough to convince me.
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
MAR 31, 06:26 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 2.5:
Sorry you did answer, I was missing it within all the conflict it creates in reason, for me personally.
Because technology hasnt caught up, it is ok to kill an unborn child?
Because it takes sacrifice to have a child, it is ok to kill that child?
You'd consider killing the unborn baby you created the same as pulling the plug on someone who can no longer live via medical life support, for example someone who was in a horrible accident?
|
|
Yes, that about covers it.
I would phrase it differently, of course, but yeah that’s close enough. What conflicted reasoning is there? To me, it’s a matter of a hierarchy of rights. I can’t force you to donate your kidney to me, even if you caused me to have an accident that required me to need a new kidney.
If you don’t believe that’s true, then the implications are frightening. What else does the government control of your body? Can they force you to donate blood? Can they force you to donate organs? Can they kill you to harvest your organs?
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAR 31, 06:53 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
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.
|
|
So when did the abortion happen that you're now defending?
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
MAR 31, 07:11 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
So when did the abortion happen that you're now defending? |
|
To my knowledge, my wife has never had an abortion, nor has any woman ever aborted any fetus that resulted from my actions.
If you want to know why I support it, you only have to read what has already been said: We all have rights, those rights are hierarchical by necessity, and your right to life does not supersede my bodily autonomy.
It’s all very simple. Nobody has debated the hierarchy outlined, nor the rights listed. It’s all either thinly related or completely unrelated to the actual argument.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAR 31, 07:38 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by slicknick:
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.
|
|
That is indeed the "caveat" appended to the law(s) but NONE OF THAT nullifies anything that I stated or what the main body of those laws specify.
IF you bother to look at the legislative and legal history of those laws you will see that they ran headlong into a fight with pro-abortion advocates who used the unconstitutional Roe v Wade decision as their principal weapon to extract that concession.
You should have also noted the portion of subsection (1) which says: "or a person authorized to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is IMPLIED BY LAW" the clear language of which absolutely takes the decision OUT of the pregnant woman's hand's if SOMEONE ELSE makes a sufficient legal claim.
Example: Jane is pregnant and doesn't want an abortion. She is presently unconscious due to a brain injury and isn't expected to regain consciousness any time soon, possibly not within a year or ever. Other than her unconscious state Jane has otherwise normal brain function and isn't clinically "brain dead" or on life support. Jane and her husband Dick, argued over an abortion before her injury and Dick wants an abortion.
Under the subsection of the law you posted Dick now gets to decided for her.
There is also the inverse of that example where Jane wanted an abortion prior to her injury and Dick didn't. Now Dick gets to force Jane to carry the child to term and give birth.
...
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
Your failure to comprehend basic logic is also not supported by any laws, as laws are not morality,
Do you need me to explain it any further?
|
|
1.) As I elaborated above, your whack-job "basic logic" isn't supported by anything, and that includes law OR morality. I've seen better, and more well founded, reasoning from an average high school student.
2.) Our codified laws are absolutely founded in MORALITY and they have been since ancient times. Where the hell do you think they came from?
3.) Your bullshit of "bodily autonomy" and "hierarchical rights" went right out the window with government mandated masks, and vaccinations.
4.) WTF is it with your continual use of the terms "people" and "pregnant person" in this thread? Are you unable to properly determine that only women can become pregnant? The blather that you post around here always contains some sort of nonsensical "woke speak".
5.) After reviewing the sum total of your other recent posts and your posts in this thread I now believe that YOU ARE A "LIBERTARIAN" and I believe that in exactly the same manner that I believe that this is a "woman":
Do you need me to explain it any further?[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-31-2022).]
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
MAR 31, 09:03 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
1.) As I elaborated above, your whack-job "basic logic" isn't supported by anything, and that includes law OR morality. I've seen better, and more well founded, reasoning from an average high school student.
2.) Our codified laws are absolutely founded in MORALITY and they have been since ancient times. Where the hell do you think they came from?
3.) Your bullshit of "bodily autonomy" and "hierarchical rights" went right out the window with government mandated masks, and vaccinations.
4.) WTF is it with your continual use of the terms "people" and "pregnant person" in this thread? Are you unable to properly determine that only women can become pregnant? The blather that you post around here always contains some sort of nonsensical "woke speak".
5.) After reviewing the sum total of your other recent posts and your posts in this thread I now believe that YOU ARE A "LIBERTARIAN" and I believe that in exactly the same manner that I believe that this is a "woman":
Do you need me to explain it any further?
|
|
I don’t and didn’t ever support government-mandated vaccines or masks.
Besides just stating you disagree and mischaracterizing what I say, try actually arguing with the logic.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAR 31, 09:13 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
I don’t and didn’t ever support government-mandated vaccines or masks.
|
|
I neither asked you that question or made any allegations about your "support".
I simply stated that those bullshit ideas like you expressed have been summarily negated by government fiat.
Try to keep up.
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
Besides just stating you disagree and mischaracterizing what I say, try actually arguing with the logic.
|
|
I would if you had exhibited any.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-31-2022).]
|
|
|
|