Roe vs Wade anniversary

[nehalem256]

That's a sentiment that suggests that the legal system should take another look at the man's obligations in a situation where he gets a woman unintentionally pregnant.

In my opinion, the man should not be able to force the woman to carry a baby to term if she does not want to. Should she choose to do so, however, any future child support obligations are an entirely separate discussion not really relevant here in this thread.

The argument of "well, the man doesn't get a choice, so why should the woman?" isn't valid IMO because the situation is different.

Since as you said abortion is really about controlling women's sexuality I don't think it is an entirely separate discussion to see if society has any issue controlling men's sexuality. See for example from this thread:

Rights of the father? Keep it in his pants or pay it out his ass.

So why is it okay to punish men for having sex, but not women?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Can we also have a special "raise bastard children" tax?

Maybe people who fuck w/o protection should pay a "we're too stupid to use rubbers" tax?

The tax is the cost of an abortion, but the religious fanatics will have made it illegal. Why should atheists and secular people have to pay for the luxury of some people's religious insanity? What I am proposing would make the religious people pay for the practical economic costs of imposing their religion on other people.

 

[nehalem256]

The tax is the cost of an abortion, but the religious fanatics will have made it illegal. Why should atheists and secular people have to pay for the luxury of some people's religious insanity? What I am proposing would make the religious people pay for the practical economic costs of imposing their religion on other people.

So should we also make it so that liberals have to pay a "bastard child tax"? Why should social conservatives be forced to pay for the luxury of liberals rejection of centuries of common sense?

What I am proposing would make liberals pay for the practical economic costs of their ideology on society.

 

[Texashiker]

The tax is the cost of an abortion, but the religious fanatics will have made it illegal. Why should atheists and secular people have to pay for the luxury of some people's religious insanity? What I am proposing would make the religious people pay for the practical economic costs of imposing their religion on other people.

Religion aside, we have a moral obligation to protect all life.

Whether it is a child in a street, or a child in a womb, both deserve protection.

 

[zinfamous]

Children do not live in wombs, however.

:hmm:

 

[Texashiker]

Children do not live in wombs, however.

:hmm:

Is there a heart beat? Is there brainwave activity?

 

[nehalem256]

Children do not live in wombs, however.

:hmm:

Sure they do. Which is why after 22 weeks gestation you can no longer kill it, because at that point the fetus officially becomes a child

 

[zinfamous]

Sure they do. Which is why after 22 weeks gestation you can no longer kill it, because at that point the fetus officially becomes a child

Texashiker has been talking about children being murdered. Obviously, you agree then that children have not been murdered, prior to 22 weeks gestation, correct?

 

[Exophase]

Is there a heart beat? Is there brainwave activity?

Do you have an objection against killing other animals that have a heart beat and/or brainwave activity?

 

[zinfamous]

Is there a heart beat? Is there brainwave activity?

Are you a cardiologist or a neurologist? Or an immunologist, or a developmental biologist? All have differing opinions on what constitutes "life," where it begins, or even if it is merely one potential outcome of a long process.

Whatever you may think, personally, is not reflective of the progress of gained knowledge on a complex subject that has no clear answer.

 

[nehalem256]

Texashiker has been talking about children being murdered. Obviously, you agree then that children have not been murdered, prior to 22 weeks gestation, correct?

You said:

Children do not live in wombs, however.

I was pointing out that in fact it is generally accepted that children do in fact live in wombs. The only disagreement is how long.

 

[zinfamous]

You said:


I was pointing out that in fact it is generally accepted that children do in fact live in wombs. The only disagreement is how long.

what, you mean only you are allowed to deflect? for shame

so, you agree then, that the original OP is totally false, as late term abortions are illegal, and during the term that the embryo is considered a fetus, no children have ever been murdered due to legalized abortion?

 

[nehalem256]

what, you mean only you are allowed to deflect? for shame

so, you agree then, that the original OP is totally false, as late term abortions are illegal, and during the term that the embryo is considered a fetus, no children have ever been murdered due to legalized abortion?

That would depend on the definition of a child.

You tried to claim it was obvious a fetus was not a child because it lived in the womb, when it is well accepted that children do in fact live in the womb.

You wanted to turn a gray area into a black/white one. You lost. Get over it.

 

[Texashiker]

Are you a cardiologist or a neurologist? Or an immunologist, or a developmental biologist? All have differing opinions on what constitutes "life," where it begins, or even if it is merely one potential outcome of a long process.

Use the same standard for any other child, if there are brain waves there is life.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/06/california-girl-jahi-mcmath-brain-dead-tonsillectomy

 

[zinfamous]

That would depend on the definition of a child.

You tried to claim it was obvious a fetus was not a child because it lived in the womb, when it is well accepted that children do in fact live in the womb.

You wanted to turn a gray area into a black/white one. You lost. Get over it.

what? You think there is a grey area, in this reality, somewhere?

I think we have achieved an epiphany.

So, you agree, then, that no child has ever been murdered as a result of legalized abortion.

 

[zinfamous]

Use the same standard for any other child, if there are brain waves there is life.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/06/california-girl-jahi-mcmath-brain-dead-tonsillectomy

This child was actually born at one point. Not the same standard

 

[Texashiker]

This child was actually born at one point. Not the same standard

Same standard that defines life.

 

[nehalem256]

what? You think there is a grey area, in this reality, somewhere?

I think we have achieved an epiphany.

So, you agree, then, that no child has ever been murdered as a result of legalized abortion.

I think it is obvious there is widespread debate on when exactly a fetus become a child. Hence for example why this thread exists.

There is however general acceptance that a fetus become a child at some point before it is born.

And therefore the statement:

Children do not live in wombs, however.

:hmm:

Would be considered false by most people.

Do you think it is acceptable for a woman to abort her 8.9month fetus?

 

[Moonbeam]

Same standard that defines life.

It is terrible to abort fetuses. It is terrible to force a human being to carry a baby they don't want to carry. A rational compromise to this problem was found in RvW. It's the law of the land, a secular compromise between two irreconcilable moral absolutes. A rational balance was reached. The will to impose moral absolutes on a society that has to deal in reality is evil. The Constitution is what gets shoved down the throats of moral fanatics that won't let other people go by their own lights. Thank God for that. The religious right are hell bent of creating a religious state. If they are not crushed in their attempts we will live again in the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Texashiker]

It is terrible to abort fetuses. It is terrible to force a human being to carry a baby they don't want to carry. A rational compromise to this problem was found in RvW. It's the law of the land,

It is terrible to let blacks run free. It is terrible for a white man to pick his own crops when blacks are available. A rational compromise is to adopt slavery. Its the law of the land,,, or rather slavery was the law of the land.

Just because something was/is legal, and upheld by the supreme court, does not make it right.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is terrible to let blacks run free. It is terrible for a white man to pick his own crops when blacks are available. A rational compromise is to adopt slavery. Its the law of the land,,, or rather slavery was the law of the land.

Just because something was/is legal, and upheld by the supreme court, does not make it right.

I didn't say it was right, I said it was a decision that balanced one absolute against another rationally. Think of it this way. The fetus is bound to honor its parents as per the 10 commandments and if a parent wants it dead it must obey the will of god. It's an absolute commandment right there in the Bible and no matter what you say the fetus has no right to live if the parent wishes it dead. This is what I believe and I want the Supreme court to legalize the right of parents to kill their children at any age because regardless of age, children are bound by their parents will.

 

[Texashiker]

I didn't say it was right, I said it was a decision that balanced one absolute against another rationally. Think of it this way.

You can try to justify it all you want, but society is allowing someone to kill another person who can not speak up for them self.

Whos side are you on?

This is no different than slavery, native americans, mormons, Japanese-Americans,,,, and a long list of other crimes against humanity.

Are you on the side of the victim, or are you on the side of the killer?

Are you on the side of the slave, or the slave owner?

Are the on the side of the native american, or on the side of the government?

When Japanese-Americans were being rounded up and set to camps, where would you have stood?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You can try to justify it all you want, but society is allowing someone to kill another person who can not speak up for them self.

Whos side are you on?

This is no different than slavery, native americans, mormons, Japanese-Americans,,,, and a long list of other crimes against humanity.

Are you on the side of the victim, or are you on the side of the killer?

Are you on the side of the slave, or the slave owner?

Are the on the side of the native american, or on the side of the government?

When Japanese-Americans were being rounded up and set to camps, where would you have stood?

None of these arguments resonate with pro-choice people because we don't view a fetus as indistinguishable from a born human. The answer to literally every example you gave is "non-equivalence, a fetus is not the same as a born human." Until you're able to show us why we should consider an embryo or fetus as human life from the point of conception as opposed to some other stage in the development process, your arguments aren't going to sway us because they rely on a fundamental point (life begins at conception) that we disagree with.

 

[InlineRanger]

...

 

[Moonbeam]

You can try to justify it all you want, but society is allowing someone to kill another person who can not speak up for them self.

Whos side are you on?

This is no different than slavery, native americans, mormons, Japanese-Americans,,,, and a long list of other crimes against humanity.

Are you on the side of the victim, or are you on the side of the killer?

Are you on the side of the slave, or the slave owner?

Are the on the side of the native american, or on the side of the government?

When Japanese-Americans were being rounded up and set to camps, where would you have stood?

I'm on the side of allowing women to decide this matter for themselves regardless of my opinion or yours. Until a fetus can be removed from a female body and implanted in a passionate believer in life like yourself to be brought to term, I see no alternative. I am sure that you would volunteer, since life is so important, right?