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

[Atreus21]

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.

I note you avoided the question. Which extreme is worse? Forcing a 10 year old to give birth to a child, or tearing this:

to pieces, and then re-assembling each piece on a table to ensure the puzzle is complete.

 

[Atreus21]

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

It's always intriguing when people go to some length to avoid answering a hypothetical question.

I didn't say you would advocate it. If hypothetically someone started a movement to reinstitute slavery, would it be a defensible retort to any objection to say "if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave"? Just yes or no or I don't know.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's always intriguing when people go to some length to avoid answering a hypothetical question.

I didn't say you would advocate it. If hypothetically someone started a movement to reinstitute slavery, would it be a defensible retort to any objection to say "if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave"? Just yes or no or I don't know.

Both slavery and forcing girls / women to carry to birth are about a person's rights. Neither is ok, so get down off your lame hypothetical soap box.

Don't like rape? Well, don't be raped, dum dums.

 

[Atreus21]

There are nearly a million children in foster care in the US, so no, adoption is not always a viable alternative.

It's certainly more viable and humane than killing them.

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.

A. How do you know that?
B. Again, that's irrelevant. If I say 2+2=4 and don't really believe it, that doesn't jeopardize the claim that 2+2=4.

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.

Nonsense. I would never rebuke a woman who gave a child up for adoption because she felt unable to raise him or her.

 

[dank69]

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

Why even go down that road? The debate is not about whether it is a person or not. Even if you grant them their wish to classify it as a person it is still occupying another person's body and damaging that body in the process. If someone shoved their hand up a woman's vagina without her consent she would have the right to shoot that person in the head in order to stop them. Make them tell you why she should not have that right. Notice Atreus avoids this question every time I pose it to him.

 

[Atreus21]

They are not innocent human beings. They are human beings occupying space inside other human beings leeching and nutrients from them.

I've noted that dysphemism is a favored tactic of those promoting the death of unpopular minorities.

The child is in its natural and only possible habitat. The mother's uterus is doing the function for which it is designed. Disparaging a completely natural process as "occupying space and leeching", as if the child invaded someone's body like a disease is cruel and dishonest.

And of course they are innocent. They've done nothing wrong.

I think every human being should have the right to defend their body from other human beings with lethal force. Do you disagree?

No, to the extent that they are under some sort of attack. They aren't.

 

[Atreus21]

Both slavery and forcing girls / women to carry to birth are about a person's rights. Neither is ok, so get down off your lame hypothetical soap box.

Don't like rape? Well, don't be raped, dum dums.

Yes, no, or I don't know.

 

[Vic]

I note you avoided the question. Which extreme is worse? Forcing a 10 year old to give birth to a child, or tearing this:

to pieces, and then re-assembling each piece on a table to ensure the puzzle is complete.

Once again, your false dilemma fails because you are not offering to do anything to assist that 10 year old in the bearing and raising of that child. Except maybe to slut-shame her yet again if she fails to be a good mother. Which in the end, is no different than enslaving the mother while tearing that child to pieces yourself.

The disconnect here IMO comes from your failure to recognize that the morality of abortion is separate from the legality of abortion. I actually agree with you that abortion is immoral. Where we don't agree is your belief that outlawing abortion, by itself, will do anything to solve the problem. Besides easing your conscience of course. So IMO you're just using emotional appeals to sweep the problem back under the rug with feel-good legislation, without doing anything to address the actual problem, and without regard for the obvious consequences of that.

 

[Vic]

It's certainly more viable and humane than killing them.



A. How do you know that?
B. Again, that's irrelevant. If I say 2+2=4 and don't really believe it, that doesn't jeopardize the claim that 2+2=4.



Nonsense. I would never rebuke a woman who gave a child up for adoption because she felt unable to raise him or her.

If you don't care about the child after it's born, then you don't care about the child before it's born either. That's simple logic. Your expectation is clearly that you should be able to enslave the mother to raise the child for you.

 

[Atreus21]

Once again, your false dilemma fails because you are not offering to do anything to assist that 10 year old in the bearing and raising of that child. Except maybe to slut-shame her yet again if she fails to be a good mother. Which in the end, is no different than enslaving the mother while tearing that child to pieces yourself.

It's not a dilemma at all. It's doing an apples-to-apples comparison of the extremes of both sides of the debate.

The extremes of the pro-life side involve requiring a rape victim to give birth to her rapist's child.

The extremes of the pro-abortion position involve the literal tearing to pieces of a baby.

Which is worse? To me, the answer is clear.

The disconnect here IMO comes from your failure to recognize that the morality of abortion is separate from the legality of abortion. I actually agree with you that abortion is immoral. Where we don't agree is your belief that outlawing abortion, by itself, will do anything to solve the problem. Besides easing your conscience of course. So IMO you're just using emotional appeals to sweep the problem back under the rug with feel-good legislation, without doing anything to address the actual problem, and without regard for the obvious consequences of that.

We don't have to solve every possible contributing factor that might drive someone to steal, or to commit murder, to outlaw theft and murder.

 

[Vic]

It's not a dilemma at all. It's doing an apples-to-apples comparison of the extremes of both sides of the debate.

The extremes of the pro-life side involve requiring a rape victim to give birth to her rapist's child.

The extremes of the pro-abortion position involve the literal tearing to pieces of a baby.

Which is worse? To me, the answer is clear.



We don't have to solve every possible contributing factor that might drive someone to steal, or to commit murder, to outlaw theft and murder.

To me, what is worse is to do both. That child could die of neglect right after you've forced the mother to give birth, and the only thing you would care about is finding another excuse to shame the mother for.

 

[Atreus21]

If you don't care about the child after it's born, then you don't care about the child before it's born either. That's simple logic.

You guys expend a lot of effort psychoanalyzing people in lieu of actual debate. This is just a species of ad hominem.

Now for the third time: Address the argument. Not the arguer.

Your expectation is clearly that you should be able to enslave the mother to raise the child for you.

First ad hominem, now straw man. That's just nonsense. My interest is in saving the lives of innocents, not forcing women to raise my children.

 

[dank69]

I've noted that dysphemism is a favored tactic of those promoting the death of unpopular minorities.

How is this relevant? I noticed white supremacists like to drink water.

The child is in its natural and only possible habitat. The mother's uterus is doing the function for which it is designed. Disparaging a completely natural process as "occupying space and leeching", as if the child invaded someone's body like a disease is cruel and dishonest.



No, to the extent that they are under some sort of attack. They aren't.

The woman is absolutely under attack. Why do you think insurance companies view women as higher risk profiles? Pregnancies are a huge risk factor, probably more so than most anything else when it comes to health.

There is nothing dishonest about what I said. The fetus literally occupies space in the woman's uterus and literally leeches nutrients from her body. If anything, calling it a person is dishonest until you successfully change the laws defining what a person is. Calling it a child is playing fast and loose with the terminology as well.

Regardless, how do any of the reasons you offered override a woman's right to defend her body with lethal force?

 

[Atreus21]

To me, what is worse is to do both. That child could die of neglect right after you've forced the mother to give birth, and the only thing you would care about is finding another excuse to shame the mother for.

Okay, so if the child were delivered to loving foster parents - you'd be okay with requiring the woman to give birth?

 

[ivwshane]

Does this law allow for the exception if the mothers health is in jeopardy?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yes, no, or I don't know.

Avoid the actual crux of your hypothetical (yet real world extremes) and force others to choose? Your argument is garbage, as it's been pointed out to you multiple times.

 

[ivwshane]

Okay, so if the child were delivered to loving foster parents - you'd be okay with requiring the woman to give birth?

Who is proposing this?

How many children have you adopted?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Okay, so if the child were delivered to loving foster parents - you'd be okay with requiring the woman to give birth?

How would you guarantee this, beyond reasonable doubt, and simultaneously reduce government size, funding, etc...

My family had foster children living with us, I wouldn't exactly call myself loving towards them, and we were a "great" foster home.

 

[Atreus21]

How is this relevant? I noticed white supremacists like to drink water.

Its relevant because so much of Nazi and Communist propaganda characterize normal people who they don't like in exactly such a manner.

The woman is absolutely under attack. Why do you think insurance companies view women as higher risk profiles?

Because pregancies usually involve hospital stays that are expensive, not because anything is attacking her.

Pregnancies are a huge risk factor, probably more so than most anything else when it comes to health.

No argument with that. But the pregnancy is not attacking her, any more than your brain attacks you when it raises your body temperature to fight an infection, leading to a possibly dangerous fever. Normal bodily functions can't be characterized as an attack.

There is nothing dishonest about what I said. The fetus literally occupies space in the woman's uterus and literally leeches nutrients from her body. If anything, calling it a person is dishonest until you successfully change the laws defining what a person is. Calling it a child is playing fast and loose with the terminology as well.

If, as has been done before, I characterized disabled people as leeches or parasites on the resources and time of society, all with the ultimate aim of trying to get them killed, would you say that's an honest argument?

Regardless, how do any of the reasons you offered override a woman's right to defend her body with lethal force?

They don't, because as I said in my first response, I don't disagree that women have that right, if they are under attack. Mischaracterizing a pregnancy as an attack doesn't lend any credibility to your argument.

 

[Vic]

You guys expend a lot of effort psychoanalyzing people in lieu of actual debate. This is just a species of ad hominem.

Now for the third time: Address the argument. Not the arguer.



First ad hominem, now straw man. That's just nonsense. My interest is in saving the lives of innocents, not forcing women to raise my children.

It's probably because your argument is self-serving bullshit. You're accusing other people of wanting to enslave 'innocent human beings,' but you appear to have no qualms with enslaving women to bear and raise children they don't want. You're not even willing to assist the women in doing so.

 

[Atreus21]

How would you guarantee this, beyond reasonable doubt, and simultaneously reduce government size, funding, etc...

My family had foster children living with us, I wouldn't exactly call myself loving towards them, and we were a "great" foster home.

You have a flesh and blood woman in front of you who wants to abort her baby. Next to her you have a loving family pleading with her to birth the child and leave him or her to their care.

Would you be okay with requiring the woman to give birth?

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's probably because your argument is self-serving bullshit. You're accusing other people of wanting to enslave 'innocent human beings,' but you appear to have no qualms with enslaving women to bear and raise children they don't want. You're not even willing to assist the women in doing so.

Can't wait to see where funding for all those loving foster families will come from.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You have a flesh and blood woman in front of you who wants to abort her baby. Next to her you have a loving family pleading with her to birth the child and leave him or her to their care.

Would you be okay with requiring the woman to give birth?

So just avoid my questions altogether. Guess you're full of baloney. And no, i'm not ok with forcing women to do anything against their will.

 

[Atreus21]

It's probably because your argument is self-serving bullshit. You're accusing other people of wanting to enslave 'innocent human beings,' but you appear to have no qualms with enslaving women to bear and raise children they don't want. You're not even willing to assist the women in doing so.

What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?

That's the only question that matters.

 

[ivwshane]

You have a flesh and blood woman in front of you who wants to abort her baby. Next to her you have a loving family pleading with her to birth the child and leave him or her to their care.

Would you be okay with requiring the woman to give birth?

I would be ok with giving the woman the decision what to do with her body. You on the other hand appear to want to control her. Why do you get to control her body and not her?