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

[nakedfrog]

I was clearly relating it to the concept as it pertains to abortion. Sorry you were unable to discern that connection.

No, it is absolutely NOT clear when you say "as far as the whole [x] and [y] and other stupid absurdities", you're definitely referring to a larger collection of items.

 

[fskimospy]

lol so you think it's reasonable to not only hold the life of the child in limbo - but also the dad's life?

I'm not holding anyone's life in limbo, I'm just saying that the right of a woman to control her own body does not somehow also confer a right on men to not take care of their kids.

Do you understand how many fathers (especially black fathers) there are that can't hold down a job because they are forever plagued by child support payments? Fuck tons.

If people need additional support to find gainful employment I'm all for that but that doesn't mean absent that I must support people not supporting their own children.

Want to know what happens when they can't pay child support? The jurisdictions will do things like suspend their drivers license (just as what would happen if you don't pay for your traffic tickets). Then what happens? They can't make it to work, get fired, etc...

I don't support suspending drivers licenses for failure to pay any fine or obligation but that doesn't mean I then must support people not supporting their own children.

Then it's just a lovely grind of trying to make money under the table. What a great plan - it must work so well for the children.... Except it fucking doesn't.

So instead the answer is to simply stop requiring adults to support their own children? That's absurd.

If you want to discuss how child support should be governed in the US that's one thing but it is in no way tied to the right of women to control their own bodies.

 

[dank69]

So I understand: You admit the fetus is a human being, yet completely support killing the child if the mother wants it?

For the purposes of our discussion, yes I have granted you the concession that not only is the fetus a human being, but that it is a person with all the rights and protections that would confer to it. I am doing so in order to illustrate that even with those concessions, the right to defend one's body with lethal force is still justified, so we should all stop wasting each other's time arguing about whether or not it is a person.

Competitive does not mean hostile, and it doesn't mean the pregnancy is attacking the mother. Do you think the pregnancy is trying to kill the mother?

If you're going to characterize the interplay between two biological systems as an attack, then we might just as well extend it outside the womb, as the same interplay exists there in a larger context. The article you cited gave examples of it.



Yes, and that's a normal bodily function. The uterus exists for that explicit purpose.



Your link established that the relationship is both competitive and cooperative, not that it's an attack on the mother.

First of all, you are dishonestly trying to assert that something cannot be an attack if the intent was not to kill the victim. I guess rape is not an attack? Punching someone is not an attack? Ridiculous.

Let's look at the definition of attack:

"to begin to affect or to act on injuriously"

Yup, all of the things in that source meet that definition.

Would you like to try to hand-wave away that source again or would you like to concede that the person is literally attacking the mother in numerous ways?

 

[DarthKyrie]

For the purposes of our discussion, yes I have granted you the concession that not only is the fetus a human being, but that it is a person with all the rights and protections that would confer to it. I am doing so in order to illustrate that even with those concessions, the right to defend one's body with lethal force is still justified, so we should all stop wasting each other's time arguing about whether or not it is a person.




First of all, you are dishonestly trying to assert that something cannot be an attack if the intent was not to kill the victim. I guess rape is not an attack? Punching someone is not an attack? Ridiculous.

Let's look at the definition of attack:

"to begin to affect or to act on injuriously"

Yup, all of the things in that source meet that definition.

Would you like to try to hand-wave away that source again or would you like to concede that the person is literally attacking the mother in numerous ways?

Corporations are people my friend, not women.

/s

 

[Victorian Gray]

Also as far as the whole "womens rights" and "my body my choice" and other stupid absurdities - Can folks here at least come to the agreement that if a man doesn't wish to have a child that the woman can proceed if she wants but you shouldn't be able to demand child support if that is what you choose?

I get there is a certain narrative of "my body my choice" and "the mom has 51% of the vote while the dad has 49%" - but this should be a no brainer when it comes to pregnancies out of wedlock.

No squirrels allowed. Start your own thread on child support.

 

[dank69]

You apparently intend to ignore the real world, happening right now, example of an 11 year old that I provided.

"After 23 weeks of pregnancy, she had to undergo a procedure similar to a caesarean section on Tuesday. The baby is unlikely to survive."

And you have no issues with this. Good to know.

Hey we tried, and that is all that matters. Infinitesimal amounts of suffering are nothing compared to the life of the "babies" even if the "babies" die anyway. And I say that totally not from a religious perspective. Has nothing to do with a soul or whatever. It's human DNA and it is living and it is innocent. Poor innocent little clump of living human DNA containing cells attacking an evil 11yo girl who would murder the poor innocent little clump of human DNA containing cells if given the chance, for her own selfish reasoning. She deserves to die.

 

[jackstar7]

I've been answering your questions - you can oblige to answer one of mine. When society compels me to attend jury duty, or to pay taxes, am I being enslaved?

You are not good at analogies. Try to find something actually analogous. Best of luck!

 

[jackstar7]

No squirrels allowed. Start your own thread on child support.

Wait, you mean this isn't a thread about the rights of sperm donors?

 

[ch33zw1z]

You are not good at analogies. Try to find something actually analogous. Best of luck!

Society is compelling him to accept it and move on:

About seven-in-ten Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade

More than 40 years after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, 69% of Americans say the historic ruling should not be completely overturned.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[sdifox]

once the broken boomer brain is gone we can hopefully fix everything. I say hopefully because gen x seems to be just as crazy. We need to get past the generations that didnt grow up with infinite information at their fingertips. They cant handle its power.

Dude you just called out the majority of members here

 

[JSt0rm]

Dud you just called out the majority of members here

as always

 

[brycejones]

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.

Straw, you need more. A much more accurate representation of the discussion would be a sonogram at an early stage of pregnancy.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Here you go pro-forced birthers, here is a picture that contains 2 fetuses that look like the average fetus that is aborted by human females. Tell me how something that looks like this is a human when these aren't humans they are a dog and an elephant?

 

[ivwshane]

Dude you just called out the majority of members here

Yeah but he’s right. Luckily gen X has little influence.

 

[Luna1968]

Here you go pro-forced birthers, here is a picture that contains 2 fetuses that look like the average fetus that is aborted by human females. Tell me how something that looks like this is a human when these aren't humans they are a dog and an elephant?

?? who is arguing about aborting elephants and dogs? so because the human fetus kinda looks like a elephant and dog fetus... oh never mind your comparison is garbage.

 

[DarthKyrie]

At that stage of development, there are really no differences between mammal fetuses because the different genes within the DNA haven't triggered any changes in the fetus. That is what my point was.

 

[brycejones]

?? who is arguing about aborting elephants and dogs? so because the human fetus kinda looks like a elephant and dog fetus... oh never mind your comparison is garbage.

Follow the thread.......

 

[Paratus]

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.

First off it’s the 10 year old risking their life to give birth

Second I don’t know which is worse and neither do you. Did that babies mother die on the table because she was a raped 10 year old? Is that baby currently dying an agonizing death from a medical problem incompatible with life? This is why it should be left up to the mother, the doctor and possibly her family.

Women who need Abortions after 20 weeks are doing it because of health risks to themselves or health problems with their babies or because of rape and circumstances specific to their situation. The laws do not allow a baby after that point to aborted for other reasons. Which I’m fine with. If the mother does not want a viable child then adoption should be the option. If she doesn’t want to remain pregnant schedule a delivery as soon as the baby is considered full term

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.

The problem is you like to argue that 2+2 <>4 because there’s a “4” on one side and some “2’s” and a “+” on the other and a “4” is not some “2’s”. Which completely misses the point.

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.

Again the extreme which has already occurred is for a child to risk their life having their rapists (incestuous) baby.

Both are innocent but your position says enslavement of the mother is acceptable

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.

"The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings."

-Maureen Condic, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, also Director of Human Embryology instruction.

No one is going to argue that a person wasn’t at one point a fertilized egg or that a fertilized egg is alive or isn’t human. Everyone was originally an unfertilized egg and a sperm too. So why is Fertilization the point at which you want to confer personhood?

There’s no brain, no thought no consciousnesses, nothing that would be considered a person at that point.

But if we assume for the sake of argument that a fertilized egg is a person under the law then as I’ve said at infinitum that the act of procreation is tantamount to manslaughter.

In Texas: “
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
In simple terms, Texas views manslaughter as a crime in which a person recklessly causes death of another.”

Legal definition of reckless:
“Description
In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action”

So what’s the risk being disregarded?

It’s a risk that increases from about 16% up to over 80% depending on the age of the mother. If you are trying to get pregnant here’s your risk of killing a fertilized embryo. Even if you look at the low end your risk of killing a child through unprotected sex is orders of magnitude higher than your chance of killing someone while drunk driving.

This is the point where you claim 2+2 <>4. You’ll claim “you can’t be held responsible because you didn’t want the child to die and you don’t control the process. And It’s only like murder when a woman has an abortion on purpose.”

Except you do control the process. You had control when you decided to have unprotected sex. Absent your decision no child would have died. The risk is known and you recklessly ignored it.

Under your logic devout Catholics for example will cause the death of dozens or hundreds of children via manslaughter through their child bearing years. Many times more than any woman who has a single abortion.

However if they are successful in overturning Roe based on your assertion there is no right to bodily autonomy then the state should immediately enact a set of laws to reduce the number of women who are enslaved by the state as incubators. Any women who didn’t want to be pregnant should be able to identify the father who will then be arrested and once sentenced will be forced to have a vasectomy by the state with a fine covering the cost. This will drastically cut down on unwanted pregnancies.