The horror of abortion restrictions

[Retro Rob]

What does that have to do with anything? There's nothing irresponsible or negligent about having sex.

Sex in and of itself is fine. They ARE being negligent by having sex and ignoring the consequences. What if they were having unprotected sex and caught some deadly STD? That's not being negligent?

Do you suffer from the delusion that birth control is without a measurable failure rate?

No protection has a 100% failure rate. BC gives you something. The point is to take measures to prevent pregnancy of one doesn't want a baby.

Why not? Do you think that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape"?

Because I would never tell a woman what to do if she was a victim of rape and got pregnant as a result.

Isn't that so-called "trashy" behavior still within their rights as citizens? What happened to favoring personal liberty?

Ok, just because you *can* do something, that makes it ok even if it hurts you?

It's within my rights as a citizen to live at a casino and gamble my life away, so I should do it, because it's my "right"?

Why should she? She didn't violate any one's rights or behave negligently. Why shouldn't she have the right to seek a medical remedy to an unwelcome intrusion into her body?

unwelcome intrusion? This has be to a stupid argument. Babies don't "intrude" anyone's body UNLESS the woman allows it through sexual intercourse or a turkey baster. in other words, the woman caused the intrusion and now wants to dump it.

Well, there are those of us that think for ourselves, and then you have stupid religious nut jobs that don't really give a shit about the lives of fetuses, but just want to punish women for having sex.

I would argue that they value what becomes of sexual intercourse. IMO, a child is a wonderful benefit and a natural consequence. Without it, we would die out as a race of humans.

I am glad that not everyone has such a barbaric attitude toward child birth like you.

 

[Paratus]

This sums up my feelings on the subject

:thumbsup:

Don't expect the usual suspects to agree. They'll be in here whining about how could the Hospital know ahead of time that both would die.

Missing the point that pregnancy can be a messy dangerous process and the government needs to stay out of it and let women, their doctors and their families determine what's the best course for their individual situation.

Not assuage some assholes ideology. That woman did not give up her right to life just because she was pregnant.

 

[Retro Rob]

Not all adults are responsible. Everyone knows this. Going back to my analogy, assume the child developed the kidney failure as a result of a poor diet provided by the parents. It wasn't intentional, but could have been prevented by a responsible adult. I still don't think it would be moral to force the mother to donate a kidney.

That's a tough one.

It depends. The mother shouldn't be forced, but if she loves the child more than herself, she would.

 

[Paratus]

Sex in and of itself is fine. They ARE being negligent by having sex and ignoring the consequences. What if they were having unprotected sex and caught some deadly STD? That's not being negligent?




No protection has a 100% failure rate. BC gives you something. The point is to take measures to prevent pregnancy of one doesn't want a baby.




Because I would never tell a woman what to do if she was a victim of rape and got pregnant as a result.




Ok, just because you *can* do something, that makes it ok even if it hurts you?

It's within my rights as a citizen to live at a casino and gamble my life away, so I should do it, because it's my "right"?







unwelcome intrusion? This has be to a stupid argument. Babies don't "intrude" anyone's body UNLESS the woman allows it through sexual intercourse or a turkey baster. in other words, the woman caused the intrusion and now wants to dump it.





I would argue that they value what becomes of sexual intercourse. IMO, a child is a wonderful benefit and a natural consequence. Without it, we would die out as a race of humans.

I am glad that not everyone has such a barbaric attitude toward child birth like you.

Know how I know you don't have kids?


Maybe you should learn a little about what you want to control in others so badly.

 

[Retro Rob]

Know how I know you don't have kids?


Maybe you should learn a little about what you want to control in others so badly.

I am just being practical, or attempting to anyway.

No, I do not, nor do I want any right now.

I don't care about being wrong, so tell me what I need to learn.

 

[TerryMathews]

ME NO LIKE YOUR ANSWER. ME ASK STUPID IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS INSTEAD. HAHA I SHOW YOU!

You're right. I don't like your answer. I think at that point it's murder. I tried to get you to follow a logical conclusion and you refused. I don't see what else there is to debate at this point.

And it was tongue in cheek. How do you feel about post natal abortion? I know we've had one person in this thread support it.

 

[Ausm]

Because conservatives currently advocated for the abortion of "mentally defectives" in the womb now

You mean mentally defective as in being a Republican? Wouldn't that be detrimental in building their "Big Tent" ?

 

[Ausm]

lol. Keep hating women. It's working really well for you so far. I seriously love how crazies like you are contributing to your own demise.

I love it too and personally I think they are to stupid to go away.

 

[Blackjack200]

Well, there are those of us that think for ourselves, and then you have stupid religious nut jobs that don't really give a shit about the lives of fetuses, but just want to punish women for having sex.

And that's what it all boils down to, isn't it? Repressed nutballs that are just shaking with rage that other people get to have sex. These feeling are always painfully obvious whenever an anti-abortion crusader starts preaching about responsibility and consequences. They clearly view the pregnancy as a vindicating punishment. It's quite sad.

 

[Paratus]

I am just being practical, or attempting to anyway.

No, I do not, nor do I want any right now.

I don't care about being wrong, so tell me what I need to learn.

If you have unprotected sex on the day your partner ovulates you have 30% chance of fertilization. The rest of the month is lower. So no unprotected sex is not 100%.

Sex normally does not lead to pregnancy.

 

[randomrogue]

I am just being practical, or attempting to anyway.

No, I do not, nor do I want any right now.

I don't care about being wrong, so tell me what I need to learn.

Your need to control what other people do with their bodies would be a good place to start. Learn how to mind your own business.

 

[soulcougher73]

Ok, just because you *can* do something, that makes it ok even if it hurts you?

It's within my rights as a citizen to live at a casino and gamble my life away, so I should do it, because it's my "right"?

Should you do that? Probably not.
Is it your right and will i allow you to? You bet.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your need to control what other people do with their bodies would be a good place to start. Learn how to mind your own business.

Control what other people do.... Hmm...

We're on a forum, giving our opinion on a number of issues. That's all they are, opinions.

Am I running for office with the attempt to makes my views, law? Am I a religious representative fighting the government about laws they make?

No to both.

That being said, how am I trying to control what other people do with their bodies?

 

[Retro Rob]

Should you do that? Probably not.
Is it your right and will i allow you to? You bet.

This is what I am saying. Being allowed to do something doesn't mean that we have to.

Just because something doesn't directly affect me doesn't mean I shouldn't care about it. What if I took that attitude toward the folks that suffered from Sandy? It didn't hit here, I still have me heat and lights and gas. Why should I care?

Being human and free isn't all about doing what one wants. It's about seeing someone going down a dangerous path and warning them. Such as gambling. I won't just stand idly by and watch a friend of mine gamble his life away just because he has the right to do it. I will say something, but if he wants to keep doing it, that's him. At least I did my part.

If what other people did DIDN'T matter to others, we'd have a very detached society.

 

[nehalem256]

lol. Keep hating women. It's working really well for you so far. I seriously love how crazies like you are contributing to your own demise.

You don't think deeply about ANYTHING. It really comes as no surprise, when one reflects on it, in fact.

Calling liberals on their BS is not "hating women".

And claiming that pregnancy is worse that charging at machine guns is BS.

 

[zsdersw]

This is what I am saying. Being allowed to do something doesn't mean that we have to.

Just because something doesn't directly affect me doesn't mean I shouldn't care about it. What if I took that attitude toward the folks that suffered from Sandy? It didn't hit here, I still have me heat and lights and gas. Why should I care?

Being human and free isn't all about doing what one wants. It's about seeing someone going down a dangerous path and warning them. Such as gambling. I won't just stand idly by and watch a friend of mine gamble his life away just because he has the right to do it. I will say something, but if he wants to keep doing it, that's him. At least I did my part.

If what other people did DIDN'T matter to others, we'd have a very detached society.

Warning people is fine (to a point; nagging turns people off), but what social conservatives want to do is use government and law to prevent people from making choices that they think are wrong, even though those choices have no direct impact on anyone other than the person who is making that choice.

That is what's wrong, and is precisely why they are on the wrong side on things like abortion, gay marriage, and censorship. All of these have no implications for anyone except those who choose to participate.

Don't like abortion? Fine, don't have one.
Don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex.

As far as censorship, why should I not be able to see or hear something because you find it offensive? Why are your kids and your desire to expose them to only certain things in any way my responsibility? You control what your kids watch/hear... and the rest of us shouldn't have to deal with censorship and restrictions on what we watch simply to make your effort to censor what your kids watch/hear easier or automatic. Censorship is like saying I can't eat a steak because a baby can't chew it.

Libertarianism all the way, which includes every individual being responsible for the costs they incur or impose. Anything else is, essentially, just using law and government to nag... which is not what government is for or what government is best at.

 

[randomrogue]

zsdersw very nicely put.

 

[nehalem256]

That is what's wrong, and is precisely why they are on the wrong side on things like abortion, gay marriage, and censorship. All of these have no implications for anyone except those who choose to participate.

Don't like abortion? Fine, don't have one.
Don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex.

BS. Abortion and marriage have a profound affect on society.

 

[zsdersw]

BS. Abortion and marriage have a profound affect on society.

Not BS at all.

Your neighbor's abortion has no direct impact on you.

The marriage license issued to the gay couple down the street or across town has no direct impact on you.

Personal responsibility is required for everything in our society to work, regardless of whether it's legal or not.

Again, Libertarianism all the way.

 

[nehalem256]

Your neighbor's abortion has no direct impact on you.

That depends. Is the neighbor aborting my child?

Or what if she doesn't abort. Then liberals have no problem forcing me to feed her child. Or even if you drop that consider the vastly increased crimes amount of crimes committed by the children of single mothers.

The choice to have/not-have children has an incredibly profound effect on society

The marriage license issued to the gay couple down the street or across town has no direct impact on you.

But it has a direct impact on society. Marriage is not about individuals. If it were there would be no need to force society to recognize your private contract.

Marriage has always been about society not individuals.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Wait. So the OP believes that us against abortion think a woman in the middle of a miscarriage shouldn't have the dying fetus removed?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Don't like abortion? Fine, don't have one.
Don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex.

Just as a point of order, these are not equivalent.

Gay marriage affects only the two people involved. Abortion affects the mother, the father, and the fetus. A life is being terminated, and people do have a right to object to the taking of a life on the behalf of another.

 

[zsdersw]

That depends. Is the neighbor aborting my child?

Of course not, that would be murder.

Or what if she doesn't abort. Then liberals have no problem forcing me to feed her child. Or even if you drop that consider the vastly increased crimes amount of crimes committed by the children of single mothers.

The choice to have/not-have children has an incredibly profound effect on society

No one should be forced to pay for anyone else. What part of "personal responsibility" and it being required for everything to work don't you understand?

But it has a direct impact on society. Marriage is not about individuals. If it were there would be no need to force society to recognize your private contract.

Marriage has always been about society not individuals.

Does it? And is it? If so, then gay marriage has a direct impact on society too. Heterosexuals and their relationships aren't the only people and things that impact society. We've had this discussion before... and you were shown to be wrong then. If you want to rehash it again, fine.. but you'll lose again.

Freedom is the antithesis of constraint. Allowing and disallowing things must be done in a completely objective fashion; weighing the rights of the individual against a clear societal impact.

 

[zsdersw]

Just as a point of order, these are not equivalent.

No one said they were equivalent issues, just that they're similar in terms of the impact on society; it's limited to those involved.

Gay marriage affects only the two people involved. Abortion affects the mother, the father, and the fetus. A life is being terminated, and people do have a right to object to the taking of a life on the behalf of another.

I have no problem with requiring the consent of both the father and mother for an abortion, but aside from the mother and father, who exactly are the "people" who have a right to object to the taking of "a life" on behalf of another?

 

[nehalem256]

Of course not, that would be murder.

Fine I will clarify. My FETUS, which should have been obvious from the context

No one should be forced to pay for anyone else. What part of "personal responsibility" and it being required for everything to work don't you understand?

Trusting in personal responsibility sure worked out great for Wall Street. If we cannot trust people who are supposedly our best and brightest why in the world would we trust pregnant teenagers?

Does it? And is it? If so, then gay marriage has a direct impact on society too. Heterosexuals and their relationships aren't the only people and things that impact society. We've had this discussion before... and you were shown to be wrong then. If you want to rehash it again, fine.. but you'll lose again.

That is exactly what I said. You were the one claiming it did not. Are you now reversing your opinion?