Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[insidejob]

Are you a non-sentient, inviable fetus while you’re having sex?

Apparently.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Your right, I have never been asked about those specific 'what ifs' on this thread.

At the sake of their children? Yes, I do. If it is a sacrifice for their children, to provide a better a life, then no. If that goal requires you to kill your child, then you are a very evil person, in my intellectually dishonest opinion.

As has been mentioned repeatedly, one of the more common reasons given for having an abortion is that the woman is already taking care of a family, and adding another child would negatively impact her ability to do that. Without an abortion, the lives of her children get harder. With it, they don't. Don't those children have a right to the best life possible?

 

[Farb]

As has been mentioned repeatedly, one of the more common reasons given for having an abortion is that the woman is already taking care of a family, and adding another child would negatively impact her ability to do that. Without an abortion, the lives of her children get harder. With it, they don't. Don't those children have a right to the best life possible?

Doesn't those children's brother or sister deserve a right to live?
I am pretty sure if you ask the kids and even follow up with them after they are adults, they would probably like for their siblings to have lived. Just a hunch.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Doesn't those children's brother or sister deserve a right to live?

So now a fetus has more rights than both the person carrying it and children whose lives will be negatively impacted?

I am pretty sure if you ask the kids and even follow up with them after they are adults, they would probably like for their siblings to have lived. Just a hunch.

And now the children have a say in their mother's body as well? Damn, Farb, is there anyone lower than women in your view?

 

[Farb]

So now a fetus has more rights than both the person carrying it and children whose lives will be negatively impacted?



And now the children have a say in their mother's body as well? Damn, Farb, is there anyone lower than women in your view?

Your logic is, well, lets just say flawed. The person carrying the baby as well as the other siblings are what? What do they possess that the one in the womb does not? Life maybe? So no, they obviously have more rights than the innocent being murdered.

Do you think your last line was an attempt at an intellectual and honest debate? It wasn't but I will answer, in good faith.

Women and men that kill their children? No. Not too many occupy a lower level of my opinion than those.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Your logic is, well, lets just say flawed. The person carrying the baby as well as the other siblings are what? What do they possess that the one in the womb does not? Life maybe? So no, they obviously have more rights than the innocent being murdered.

The pregnant person has the only thing that matters: bodily autonomy.

Do you think your last line was an attempt at an intellectual and honest debate? It wasn't but I will answer, in good faith.

There's nothing dishonest about hyperbolically pointing out the obvious conclusion of your argument.

Women and men that kill their children? No. Not too many occupy a lower level of my opinion than those.

Fantastic. People can hold as many extreme opinions as they want. All I ask is that they stop trying to enshrine them into law, thus forcing other people to live by them.

 

[MT15]

What a woman does with her own body is between her and her god. That’s it. Nobody has the right to force her to do something that is her decision. The anti-abortion position is the only one taking control of a person and forcing them to do something. It’s called free will, and I do believe the Christian god has granted it to human beings.

 

[Taurus]

Is her consent tied directly to my right to live? If we stop having sex, in your weird scenario, does that mean I get my arms and legs removed, my spine cut and vacuumed away or a poison injected into my heart before being disassembled and vacuumed out?

So you do admit that consent at the start doesn't mean consent through the entire act.
I expect the misogynistic "The little slut chose to have sex, so she's stuck with the consequences," insinuations to end.

 

[Farb]

The pregnant person has the only thing that matters: bodily autonomy.



There's nothing dishonest about hyperbolically pointing out the obvious conclusion of your argument.



Fantastic. People can hold as many extreme opinions as they want. All I ask is that they stop trying to enshrine them into law, thus forcing other people to live by them.

We obviously disagree on 'extreme'. I personally don't have a problem with the having laws against murder, rape and the like so I don't see a problem with banning abortion.

 

[Farb]

What a woman does with her own body is between her and her god. That’s it. Nobody has the right to force her to do something that is her decision. The anti-abortion position is the only one taking control of a person and forcing them to do something. It’s called free will, and I do believe the Christian god has granted it to human beings.

I am not talking about her body, I am talking about the body of an innocent life. That is the distinction to me.
Again, if you don't want to run the risk of having a baby, there is a 100% effective way of not having baby. Anything other you run that risk.
Self accountability.

 

[Farb]

So you do admit that consent at the start doesn't mean consent through the entire act.
I expect the misogynistic "The little slut chose to have sex, so she's stuck with the consequences," insinuations to end.

So by your logic, if the mother and father consent to have sex, they also consent to the possibility of having a child. I can buy that.
If they don't want to run that risk of having a child, there is only 1 100% effective way to prevent it. Otherwise, there is a risk and those actions have consequences. Self accountability.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

We obviously disagree on 'extreme'. I personally don't have a problem with the having laws against murder, rape and the like so I don't see a problem with banning abortion.

Nobody has a problem with those laws, which serve a secular purpose. Your religious views don't.

 

[Farb]

Nobody has a problem with those laws, which serve a secular purpose. Your religious views don't.

My view on when life begins is not a religious view, no matter how many times you just keep regurgitating the lie.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

My view on when life begins is not a religious view, no matter how many times you just keep regurgitating the lie.

It is?

Do you support abortions until viability, then?

Legally, I think they will move the stance of viability unfortunately because the SCOTUS has become a joke of itself.

Personally, no, I don't. And yes, it is a religious stance.

Suddenly claiming that it isn't a religious stance doesn't change anything. All it does is make you disingenuous.

 

[MT15]

I am not talking about her body, I am talking about the body of an innocent life. That is the distinction to me.
Again, if you don't want to run the risk of having a baby, there is a 100% effective way of not having baby. Anything other you run that risk.
Self accountability.

Yes you absolutely are talking about a woman’s body. You are demanding that women go through something that will change their bodies forever, and may cost her life for your religious belief that the embryo is a full person with rights that supersede the woman’s control over her own body.

What if it’s a 12 year old girl who is pregnant? Do you fell the same way? Do you force a child to carry the pregnancy? Her body will suffer more than an adult woman will during pregnancy. There is a greater chance she will have serious complications, both physically and mentally.

 

[SamAndreas]

An old adage, a women gains a child but loses a tooth.

Sometimes she loses her life.

 

[Taurus]

So by your logic, if the mother and father consent to have sex, they also consent to the possibility of having a child. I can buy that.
If they don't want to run that risk of having a child, there is only 1 100% effective way to prevent it. Otherwise, there is a risk and those actions have consequences. Self accountability.

Utterly the opposite.

 

[brandon]

It is?





Suddenly claiming that it isn't a religious stance doesn't change anything. All it does is make you disingenuous.

Once again, @Farb completely exposed, and once again, he will deflect.