A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Jack4jill]

How about using contraception to avoid the dastardly mistake? Nobody in their right mind would argue against prevention.

And yet, they do.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

We can't add abortion to the list of other crimes that involve the death of a human being such as manslaughter, murder, etc, etc, and etc?

 

[MarcATL]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

trump said there should be some form of punishment for women who have abortions, but then again, he may have switched that to a "suggestion" along with just about everything else he gets called on.

Yes, he did, then quickly walked that back, saying he misunderstood the question, and, most recently, he insisted that he meant women who have abortions would punish themselves - I can only presume he meant emotionally. So there is really no reason to believe Trump would support any punishment for women having abortions.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

When it comes to trump, there is no reason to believe anything he has to say.

I believe him before I'd believe Hillary.

Then you are a fool.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

trump said there should be some form of punishment for women who have abortions, but then again, he may have switched that to a "suggestion" along with just about everything else he gets called on.

Matthews gottcha question for the sound bite to Trump was "if abortion was outlawed....". Trump answered based on the illegality of abortion.

So stop the bullshit.

The only bullshit is calling abortion "murder", and refusing to hold one half of the parties involved in the murder responsible.

The bullshit I refer to is the posters statement that Trump just out of the blue called for the incarceration of a woman who has an abortion.

The gottcha question for the soundbite was "if abortion was outlawed..."

So the left gets their fucking soundbite from that old bastard Matthews and runs with the "answer" without putting up the question that results in Trump's response.

AKA fucking bullshit.

It's not a "gotcha" question for those wanting to ban abortion. They'd better be able to follow that to its logical conclusion, and few can.

That's because MOST know how radical that position is and DON'T want to be caught in public uttering it.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

The words do not confuse me, as that is the very definition of murder that I used. The problem seems to be your reading comprehension, not my understanding of the meaning of words. And you didn't answer the question. What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman who has an abortion?

You are confused. Badly. You alone don't get to decide justification. If abortions are legal then it's justified. If they are illegal then it isn't. See how simple that was?

Gee. Thanks for the juvenile sophistry. Again, you should go back and try reading for comprehension. The entire point of the OP is that the anti-choice crowd wants abortion to be illegal, and that they base their desire on the position that abortion is the unjustified killing of a person - which by your own admission is murder. I simply want to know why the anti-choice crowd seems willing to "give a pass" to one half of the parties guilty of the act that they claim is equivalent to murder.

You are only doing what I expect, equivocating, and deflecting, because the question leaves rational people in an indefensible position.

You're insulting pro-life people then snivel about me? What's wrong with you. You can't read, most of them don't want it illegal outright, just not used as birth control. Rape, incest, mother's life are reasons to allow it.

You aren't rational, you're an idiot. It's common knowledge, been discussed endlessly and your puerile attempt to smear pro-lifers can't be covered up by attacking me. Like the death penalty, it should be up to the states, not some halfwit on the internet.

There are many who want it to be made illegal. So to those who do, what do they think the punishment to the mother should be?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

OK, we got it, you like to thin the weeds.

OK, we got it, you life isn't worth shit so why would anyone else's, even the unborn, be worth anything? (I don't don't agree that your life isn't worth shit)

Can those who don't think either of the above carry on telling women what they carry is not just a blob of tissue? That they actually do have a choice? The pro-abortion folks offer only one.

First of all, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't advocate abortion, I advocate women being allowed to make their own choices regarding the question, without interference from others. Second, your deflection did nothing to answer the question: What should be the appropriate punishment for the woman?

The premise of your question is flawed and you can't understand why, we get it. I advocate the people of the state make the decision. If they want to protect the life of the baby they should have that choice. So I'm the pro-choicer and you're the anti-choicer.

What is YOUR vote for what should become of the women in your state who dare to have an abortion?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

We don't. Science says a fetus isn't a person yet, and they are often spontaneously aborted, and you sometimes have to induce abortion to save the health or life of the woman. That is the science, which you refuse to accept.

Nonsense. Science says a near full term unborn baby is a living human being. Pro-aborts strenuously try to deny that.

And I would have no problem with your position if it were only "near full term" abortions that you wanted to limit. But, it isn't, is it?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

By the same token, pro-aborts don't REALLY want to just preserve abortion for rape and incest victims, do they? Yet, that is what we hear ad nauseum when we talk about wanting to protect minor girls, for example, from making hasty, permanent decisions driven by fear. At this point, I know our society will never accept a ban on abortion. That doesn't make me any less determined to find common ground and save as many lives as I can.

Not from me you don't. The "rape, incest, and health of the mother" bullshit are the anti-choice exceptions they always add to make taking the choice away from women more palatable. So, long as a fetus is non-viable, it is not a person, and is therefore the property of a pregnant woman.

However, you have again removed this argument to the abstract. Let's keep it grounded, shall we? Based on your position, what should be the punishment of the woman who chooses to have an abortion?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.

Why can't you just answer the question?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Bull...most contraceptives today are highly highly effective. They should not be free but should be cheap and easy to access. Pro lifers are pro life until the child is born. If money or govt assistance is given to the child they cry and whine like little babies cuz they don't want their precious tax dollars supporting the kid. We need to encourage abstinence yes and perhaps contraceptive use to prevent millions of unwanted pregnancies.

I didn't say they were useless; I said they were not 100% effective. Let's be generous, and say they are 95% effective. Now, let's be conservative, and say 20 million people a year are having sex, and all of them use this cheap, easy to get contraception of which you speak. That still leaves about 1 million women a year with unwanted pregnancies.

So...what? 1 million women a year - who did everything they were supposed to do to not get pregnant - are supposed to either go to jail, or have children they didn't want? Really?

 

[MarcATL]

There is no "scientific" definition of a person, as personhood is a societal determimation. The view of myself, and most rational people is that that label applies to biologically independent beings. As such viability is what matters, and science is pretty clear about when that happens.

However it is your attempt to change the subject to the "science of personhood" that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked a specific, direct question in my OP. Why are you so afraid to answer it that you feel rhe need to change the subject to a more abstract one that you feel more comfortable debating?

As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.

I said biological independence - as in biological processes function without assistance. Babies, assuming they are healthy, do not need assistance with respiration, circulation, digestion, or any other biological processes. Care to try again?

Care to pop your head out of your ass and read the posts if you are going to respond to them?

"A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing."

At what point did I disagree with that position? I have said, repeatedly, I would have no problem with your position, if it were limited to late- term, viable abortions. However, you do not want to only limit late-term, viable abortions, do you?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

It isn't up to me, that is what I said numerous times. It should be up the citizens of the state.

This is where the cowardly bastard always backs out. What do YOU say should happen to them?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

As stated, you question is flawed. You are flawed since you can't understand. No rational person defines personhood as independence. A baby isn't independent. A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing.

I said biological independence - as in biological processes function without assistance. Babies, assuming they are healthy, do not need assistance with respiration, circulation, digestion, or any other biological processes. Care to try again?

Care to pop your head out of your ass and read the posts if you are going to respond to them?

"A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing."

At what point did I disagree with that position? I have said, repeatedly, I would have no problem with your position, if it were limited to late- term, viable abortions. However, you do not want to only limit late-term, viable abortions, do you?

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

It isn't up to me, that is what I said numerous times. It should be up the citizens of the state.

No, it shouldn't. Prior to viability, abortion is no one's business but the woman, and the doctor involved. You only make this stupid comment, because you don't want to own your own position.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

Make the cowardly bastard answer it.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

I see you think you are pretty clever. Since you prefer the "anti choice" label for pro-lifers, I shall call you pro abortion.

Yeah, except, as I pointed out when someone else tried to do that, that doesn't really work. I am not, nor have I ever been an advocate for performing abortions, which is what "Pro-Abortion" implies. I am a prop0onent for women being allowed to make individual choices with regard to their own bodies, and their own choices. You, on the other hand are opposed to women being allowed to do so. Hence, Pro-Choice, and Anti-Choice are actually quite accurate labels.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, all states which made abortion illegal penalized abortionists, but a handful also made it a crime for the mother to procure an abortion. While quite a few abortionists were prosecuted, very few mothers were.

The feelings about punishing the mother vary. On one end of the pro-life spectrum, some pro-lifers feel the mother is a victim of a predatory abortion industry. At the other end of the pro-life spectrum, some pro-lifers feel the mother should be punished.

I'm sure you pro abortionists would like to scare women into the pro abortion camp by claiming that if abortion was made illegal, women will go to prison for life if they get an abortion. The pro abortion camp told a lot of lies to women, and still tell the lie that thousands of women were dying every year from back alley abortions before Roe v Wade.

As for Trump, before he decided to be a Republican last year, he was a far left liberal and very pro abortion. He stated so publicly. That's why he totally flubbed the question about whether or not women should be punished. Since he's been pro abortion until five minutes ago, he never had a pro-life thought in his entire life.

He is a poser. He is a man who has made his fortune by preying on human weaknesses. From his temple casinos which milk the poor and middle class, to his reality TV shows which encourage people to exhibit the worst of human behaviors. Lust, envy, greed, betrayal, and gluttony.

Well, you can certainly choose to "go easy" on the "poor victimized women" who are being "stalked" by the abortion industry - you know...the "industry" that the woman has to come to, make an appointment with, and sign a number of release forms from, after receiving counseling, but we'll just ignore all of that, and call her a "victim". You can certainly do that. But, then you don't get to equate it with murder. Because I'm pretty sure that there is absolutely no other circumstance of murder, where one party contracts the murder with another party, and that party is called "the victim", and given a pass.

 

[MarcATL]

Murder is murder. You either sanction it, or you don't.

A good reason not to call abortion murder, which it isn't. Not even in the Bible.

The reason abortion is not mentioned in the Bible is because it was unthinkable. It wasn't even a consideration.

There is abundant evidence in the Bible that God considered you to be a human in the womb.

It wasn't unthinkable. The Bible states that there's nothing new under the sun. Meaning humans today aren't inventing new sins, it was done already. For intance, did you know that the Israelites fell so low that they reached the state of sacrificing their own children to foreign gods? Literally, slaughtering their own flesh and blood for rituals like some crazed jungle tribe.

So yah, abortion is small fries in comparison.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

We can't add abortion to the list of other crimes that involve the death of a human being such as manslaughter, murder, etc, etc, and etc?

Are you saying that we should charge the pregnant woman with those charges?

 

[idb]

So, if a foetus is a person from the moment of sterilisation (oops...typo, I meant fertilisation), whenever there's a miscarriage there should be a murder investigation.

And, when should a woman report to the Proper Authorities that she's pregnant so that the foetus can be accorded the appropriate rights by The State?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

There shouldn't be a punishment, or an abortion (barring exigent circumstance). A woman should be "punished" for not taking proper contraceptive measures before engaging in sexual intercourse. It would be that failure that would lead to the conception of the child in question. The "punishment" should be one that forces a healthy mother to give birth and deal with the consequence(s) of her indiscretion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, if a foetus is a person from the moment of sterilisation, whenever there's a miscarriage there should be a murder investigation.

False premise.

Miscarriage is a natural process. An abortion procedure isn't.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

There shouldn't be a punishment, or an abortion (barring exigent circumstance). A woman should be "punished" for not taking proper contraceptive measures before engaging in sexual intercourse. It would be that failure that would lead to the conception of the child in question. The "punishment" should be one that forces a healthy mother to give birth and deal with the consequence(s) of her indiscretion.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

 

[OKTexas]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Assuming your premise includes the law reading as you stated, both would be equally guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. So legally, in that scenario, both should receive the same punishment. The 14th Amendment requires it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Those who respect women, you are insane and do not, know that abortion can be a necessary medical procedure.

Operative words in this case are "can be."

In more instances than not, they are aborting a fully healthy "fetus" that would more often than not grow into a healthy child.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Coward. I guess it's because I managed to destroy your premise in one stroke. So, after you. The Band-Aids and Preparation H will be administered to the the hurt butt on your way out.