Alabama passed a near-total abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest

[Viper1j]

Don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Some of those people picket airlines, every time a pilot has to abort a landing.

 

[Vic]

What about when it was? Would/Could you have defended it by the same argument?

Your argument doesn't work because the enforcement of any laws against abortion requires enslaving women to bear and raise children they do not want. Your concerns for the unborn children are ingenuine because you're not offering to care and raise them, or even to assist in such, and not even in the event the woman was raped.

 

[Atreus21]

Maybe if I thought a black person was on the same level as a fertilized egg. Maybe you should answer.

If I advocated a return to slavery, to subjugate blacks under the heels of whites, and responded to any objection with "if you dont like slavery, dont own a slave", what would be your response?

 

[Atreus21]

Your argument doesn't work because the enforcement of any laws against abortion requires enslaving women to bear and raise children they do not want.

No, it requires disallowing women from deliberately killing innocent human beings. Any secondary effects of that requirement are imposed by necessity, not intent. Characterizing as slavery a mother refraining from killing her own child is a terrible insult to those who suffered under slavery.

Furthermore, no one forces women to raise their children. Adoption is always a viable alternative.

Your concerns for the unborn children are ingenuine because you're not offering to care and raise them, or even to assist in such, and not even in the event the woman was raped.

Whether my concern is genuine or not is irrelevant. An argument isnt made right or wrong by the sincerity of its proponent.

Victims of rape are a terrible case, granted. But the target of abortion remains an innocent human being. Also consider that this represents the extreme of the pro life position, and also consider the extreme of the pro abortion position: putting to death a perfectly viable and mature baby on the technicality that it hasn't yet left the womb, sheerly on the say so of his or her mother.

Then tell me which extreme is worse. they're both horrible. But only one involves deliberately killing an innocent human being.

 

[Victorian Gray]

No, it requires disallowing women from deliberately killing innocent human beings. Any secondary effects of that requirement are imposed by necessity, not intent. Characterizing as slavery a mother refraining from killing her own child is a terrible insult to those who suffered under slavery.

Furthermore, no one forces women to raise their children. Adoption is always a viable alternative.



Whether my concern is genuine or not is irrelevant. An argument isnt made right or wrong by the sincerity of its proponent.

Victims of rape are a terrible case, granted. But the target of abortion remains an innocent human being. Also consider that this represents the extreme of the pro life position, and also consider the extreme of the pro abortion position: putting to death a perfectly viable and mature baby on the technicality that it hasn't yet left the womb, sheerly on the say so of his or her mother.

Then tell me which extreme is worse. they're both horrible. But only one involves deliberately killing an innocent human being.

Seems like this is what you want.

"An 11-year old girl who became pregnant after being raped was forced to give birth after Argentine authorities refused to allow her the abortion to which she was entitled.

The authorities ignored repeated requests for an abortion from the child, called “Lucía” to protect her identity, as well as her mother and a number of Argentine women’s right activists. After 23 weeks of pregnancy, she had to undergo a procedure similar to a caesarean section on Tuesday. The baby is unlikely to survive.

The move has been described as the “worst kind of cruelty for this child” and has been blamed on an anti-choice strategy in the country to force girls to carry their pregnancies to term.

Lucía told the psychologist at the hospital to which she was admitted after two suicide attempts: “I want you to remove what the old man put inside me.”

Girl, 11, gives birth to child of rapist after Argentina says no to abortion

Campaigners condemn authorities who ignored girl’s plea ‘to remove what the old man put inside me’

www.theguardian.com

No problems, eh? Force an 11 year old to bear a child that most likely won't survive because it would be immoral to give the child an abortion.

What was that you were muttering about slavery again?

 

[DarthKyrie]

Seems like this is what you want.

"An 11-year old girl who became pregnant after being raped was forced to give birth after Argentine authorities refused to allow her the abortion to which she was entitled.

The authorities ignored repeated requests for an abortion from the child, called “Lucía” to protect her identity, as well as her mother and a number of Argentine women’s right activists. After 23 weeks of pregnancy, she had to undergo a procedure similar to a caesarean section on Tuesday. The baby is unlikely to survive.

The move has been described as the “worst kind of cruelty for this child” and has been blamed on an anti-choice strategy in the country to force girls to carry their pregnancies to term.

Lucía told the psychologist at the hospital to which she was admitted after two suicide attempts: “I want you to remove what the old man put inside me.”

Girl, 11, gives birth to child of rapist after Argentina says no to abortion

Campaigners condemn authorities who ignored girl’s plea ‘to remove what the old man put inside me’

www.theguardian.com

No problems, eh? Force an 11 year old to bear a child that most likely won't survive because it would be immoral to give the child an abortion.

What was that you were muttering about slavery again?

"Then she shouldn't have spread her legs if she didn't want to get knocked up."

I have actually gotten that response from an anti-abortion person before when asking about a similar situation.

 

[Paratus]

No, it requires disallowing women from deliberately killing innocent human beings. Any secondary effects of that requirement are imposed by necessity, not intent. Characterizing as slavery a mother refraining from killing her own child is a terrible insult to those who suffered under slavery.

Furthermore, no one forces women to raise their children. Adoption is always a viable alternative.



Whether my concern is genuine or not is irrelevant. An argument isnt made right or wrong by the sincerity of its proponent.

Victims of rape are a terrible case, granted. But the target of abortion remains an innocent human being. Also consider that this represents the extreme of the pro life position, and also consider the extreme of the pro abortion position: putting to death a perfectly viable and mature baby on the technicality that it hasn't yet left the womb, sheerly on the say so of his or her mother.

Then tell me which extreme is worse. they're both horrible. But only one involves deliberately killing an innocent human being.

As I said earlier the self righteousness of religious conservatives at the thought of telling pregnant raped 10 year olds they will be carrying the baby to term or die trying warms my heart.

 

[HomerJS]

Seems like this is what you want.

"An 11-year old girl who became pregnant after being raped was forced to give birth after Argentine authorities refused to allow her the abortion to which she was entitled.

The authorities ignored repeated requests for an abortion from the child, called “Lucía” to protect her identity, as well as her mother and a number of Argentine women’s right activists. After 23 weeks of pregnancy, she had to undergo a procedure similar to a caesarean section on Tuesday. The baby is unlikely to survive.

The move has been described as the “worst kind of cruelty for this child” and has been blamed on an anti-choice strategy in the country to force girls to carry their pregnancies to term.

Lucía told the psychologist at the hospital to which she was admitted after two suicide attempts: “I want you to remove what the old man put inside me.”

Girl, 11, gives birth to child of rapist after Argentina says no to abortion

Campaigners condemn authorities who ignored girl’s plea ‘to remove what the old man put inside me’

www.theguardian.com

No problems, eh? Force an 11 year old to bear a child that most likely won't survive because it would be immoral to give the child an abortion.

What was that you were muttering about slavery again?

Clearly she is one of those low IQ people.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Clearly she is one of those low IQ people.

Was wondering if anyone would notice that. Stupid child indeed.

 

[Victorian Gray]

"Then she shouldn't have spread her legs if she didn't want to get knocked up."

I have actually gotten that response from an anti-abortion person before when asking about a similar situation.

Not surprised by that in the least.


And that is sad.

 

[HomerJS]

and none of them had any comment concerning the Terry Schivo case. It is at the heart of this entire thread as to who should have jurisdiction with these kinds of decisions

 

[Viper1j]

No, it requires disallowing women from deliberately killing innocent human beings. Any secondary effects of that requirement are imposed by necessity, not intent. Characterizing as slavery a mother refraining from killing her own child is a terrible insult to those who suffered under slavery.

Furthermore, no one forces women to raise their children. Adoption is always a viable alternative.

So are dumpsters, toilets, lakes and rivers.

 

[ch33zw1z]

and none of them had any comment concerning the Terry Schivo case. It is at the heart of this entire thread as to who should have jurisdiction with these kinds of decisions

Meh, they don't actually care about that stuff. The what-ifs are endless.

 

[HomerJS]

If I advocated a return to slavery, to subjugate blacks under the heels of whites, and responded to any objection with "if you don't like slavery, dont own a slave", what would be your response?

I would never advocate a return to slavery so the question is moot.

However since fertilized eggs are not people my axiom applies. If you show evidence other then you say so that fertilized eggs are people then the discussion can be had.

My guess you were probably one of those people wanting big government to tell Michael Schivo what to do with his poor wife.

 

[Vic]

No, it requires disallowing women from deliberately killing innocent human beings. Any secondary effects of that requirement are imposed by necessity, not intent. Characterizing as slavery a mother refraining from killing her own child is a terrible insult to those who suffered under slavery.

Furthermore, no one forces women to raise their children. Adoption is always a viable alternative.



Whether my concern is genuine or not is irrelevant. An argument isnt made right or wrong by the sincerity of its proponent.

Victims of rape are a terrible case, granted. But the target of abortion remains an innocent human being. Also consider that this represents the extreme of the pro life position, and also consider the extreme of the pro abortion position: putting to death a perfectly viable and mature baby on the technicality that it hasn't yet left the womb, sheerly on the say so of his or her mother.

Then tell me which extreme is worse. they're both horrible. But only one involves deliberately killing an innocent human being.

There are nearly a million children in foster care in the US, so no, adoption is not always a viable alternative.
I will repeat that it is ingenuine for you to pretend to care about that innocent human being when, after it is born, you will not lift one finger to assist in its care and raising. But you will shame the woman - again - should she fail to properly raise the child on her own. In other words, your 'solution' is both extremes, enslaving the woman while killing the child with the deliberate apathy of piousness.
But keep casting those first stones..

 

[Vic]

You like to make broad assumptions based IQ only. You may want to rethink that.

That poster is living proof of Dunning-Kruger. He thinks he's so smart, which of course is why he's not.

This is not a personal attack BTW, it is an observation of the human condition. The stupidest ideas come from the assumption that we already know the answers. The greatest evils are committed with the moral righteousness that only evil dares oppose us.

 

[dank69]

Because a human life is on the line, at stake in these proceedings. Humans have no right to murder the innocent. And at some point between conception and birth it is barbaric to murder a viable child.

No, it requires disallowing women from deliberately killing innocent human beings. Any secondary effects of that requirement are imposed by necessity, not intent. Characterizing as slavery a mother refraining from killing her own child is a terrible insult to those who suffered under slavery.

Furthermore, no one forces women to raise their children. Adoption is always a viable alternative.



Whether my concern is genuine or not is irrelevant. An argument isnt made right or wrong by the sincerity of its proponent.

Victims of rape are a terrible case, granted. But the target of abortion remains an innocent human being. Also consider that this represents the extreme of the pro life position, and also consider the extreme of the pro abortion position: putting to death a perfectly viable and mature baby on the technicality that it hasn't yet left the womb, sheerly on the say so of his or her mother.

Then tell me which extreme is worse. they're both horrible. But only one involves deliberately killing an innocent human being.

They are not innocent human beings. They are human beings occupying space inside other human beings and leeching nutrients from them. I think every human being should have the right to defend their body from other human beings with lethal force. Do you disagree?

 

[Vic]

No innocent humans beings will be saved by any laws made against abortion. Just like prohibition never stopped anyone from drinking and the war on drugs never stopped drug abuse.
These moral warrior campaigns exist so that the pious can point their fingers at sinners, and feel like they've done something, and then wash their hands of the matter.

 

[Jaskalas]

If a "human life" is on the line, let her take it out and put it on the ground.

Otherwise, it's just a parasite.

Humans don't need to leech in order to live.

That line of thinking would let you "abort" several years after the birth of a child. To highlight the logical fallacy with this retarded game of semantics.

An unborn child is still a child. And by the third trimester 90% can survive without the mother, given proper care. At that point their right to live should be recognized, so long as it does not conflict with the mother's health and safety.

 

[jackstar7]

Should that ever be allowed?

Allowed? Absolutely.

 

[jackstar7]

That line of thinking would let you "abort" several years after the birth of a child. To highlight the logical fallacy with this retarded game of semantics.

An unborn child is still a child. And by the third trimester 90% can survive without the mother, given proper care. At that point their right to live should be recognized, so long as it does not conflict with the mother's health and safety.

Or, consider that there's no such thing as an "unborn child", as a child is by definition born, like with a birthday and everything.

 

[HomerJS]

That line of thinking would let you "abort" several years after the birth of a child. To highlight the logical fallacy with this retarded game of semantics.

An unborn child is still a child. And by the third trimester 90% can survive without the mother, given proper care. At that point their right to live should be recognized, so long as it does not conflict with the mother's health and safety.

What evidence do you have that a fertilized egg is a person?

 

[hal2kilo]

What evidence do you have that a fertilized egg is a person?

Now all of the sudden, they become interested in science.

 

[jackstar7]

Now all of the sudden, they become interested in science.

Except, of course, it's philosophy.

 

[hal2kilo]

Except, of course, it's philosophy.

I was going to add that science will never be the answer to this question. I agree.