Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You bring up a good point with the man's role. When this topic is debated only the responsibilities of the doctor and the woman are discussed. But the man is obviously involved too and thus should bear some responsibility.[QUOTE="Czernobog, post: 14320954,
Currently laws are already applied and enforced treating killing of newborns as murder.
What I have suggested to remove this unequal treatment of the woman,
when both partners were responsible for the decision to have sex if not the male
being more responsible in the case of rape, coercion or other sex abuse,
is to either
You bring up a good point with the man's role. When this topic is debated only the responsibilities of the doctor and the woman are discussed. But the man is obviously involved too and thus should bear some responsibility.[QUOTE="Czernobog, post: 14320954,
Currently laws are already applied and enforced treating killing of newborns as murder.
What I have suggested to remove this unequal treatment of the woman,
when both partners were responsible for the decision to have sex if not the male
being more responsible in the case of rape, coercion or other sex abuse,
is to either
You're right, this topic is very complicated and should perhaps get a special classification to better address the unique issues..
If you would lie about 4 dead people that you were in charge of, you aren't trustworthy. If you believe anything she says. Then you are a fool.Then you are a fool.I believe him before I'd believe Hillary.When it comes to trump, there is no reason to believe anything he has to say.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.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.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?
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Wow, just wow. What else do you put above the life of a child? Wow.
A very long list of things. Children are an inconvenience and annoyance
Cold.
Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?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.
You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?
Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.
And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?
It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.
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?
First contraception is not 100%. Second, does this mean that you would agree that contraception should be free to the poor?How about using contraception to avoid the dastardly mistake? Nobody in their right mind would argue against prevention.
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
Right now they don't. Remember....Roe v Wade was passed a long time ago, and it hasn't gone away. It is legal to have an abortion.Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?
You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?
Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.
And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really?
It has the potential to become a person, if he/she is ever born....just like an egg has the potential to become a chicken, if someone doesn't eat it before it is hatched.You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life.
First Roe wasn't passed by any legislature, it was decided by 7 people. Second, the premise of the thread is that abortion is murder. Third a baby has a heartbeat and basic brain functions as early as 6 weeks gestation and can be viable as early as 23 weeks. Fourth and finally, commercial chicken eggs have not been fertilized, so no possibly to become a chicken. And finally, even a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards. What you don't appear to know could fill volumes.
Adults, however, sometimes do. Did Christopher Reeve cease to be a person because he required a ventilator to live?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?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.That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.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.
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?
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
The problem is your "unborn child" label. There is no such thing. A fetus is not a child. You want to call it a child in order to equate it with a breathing, functioning infant, in order to elicit an emotional response. See, it is a matter of opinion - and a moral position. It is the epitome of trying legislate morality.Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?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.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?
You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?
Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.
And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really? You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life. How about I leave your shit alone, and just take what you advocate taking from them, you cool with that?
That's fine, if you don't want to talk about it.That has nothing to do with why and how liberals are anti-science when it comes to abortion.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.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?Nonsense. Science says a near full term unborn baby is a living human being. Pro-aborts strenuously try to deny that.
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
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.
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?
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
And that's where the linguistic gymnastics come into play. In order to feel better about what happens during an abortion, we cannot call what is being killed a living human being. Biologically, scientifically, that's what is in there.The problem is your "unborn child" label. There is no such thing. A fetus is not a child. You want to call it a child in order to equate it with a breathing, functioning infant, in order to elicit an emotional response. See, it is a matter of opinion - and a moral position. It is the epitome of trying legislate morality.Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?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.
You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?
Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.
And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really? You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life. How about I leave your shit alone, and just take what you advocate taking from them, you cool with that?
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
That's really the bottom line, isn't it? It's ridiculous to insist that someone has to have a specific penalty in mind for breaking a law. Causing another human to die carries a wide range of penalties, from none (in the case of self defense) to capital punishment (in the case of deliberate, planned murder). It all depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. A minor girl who has been induced to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge by an unaccountable government school employee with an agenda should suffer a much lesser punishment than a 30 year old woman getting a fourth abortion because she refuses to use contraception.It isn't up to me, that is what I said numerous times. It should be up the citizens of the state.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?Care to pop your head out of your ass and read the posts if you are going to respond to them?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?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.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?
"A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing."
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
And if abortion was restricted to only medically necessary circumstances, we would see hundreds of thousands fewer done every year, and a lot less opposition to it. That's not, however, what most of the "pro-choice" crowd wants.Those who respect women, you are insane and do not, know that abortion can be a necessary medical procedure. It cannot be banned unless you are willing to let women die, which you are.So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women….
It's not about mutilation. It's about responsibility and the consequences of choices. I adore women. I have no use for Feminists. Unfortunately we have far more of the latter than the former in this country.
That's correct, although we wouldn't mind if that's all that were needed to keep the peace because the birth control use was that good.And if abortion was restricted to only medically necessary circumstances, we would see hundreds of thousands fewer done every year, and a lot less opposition to it. That's not, however, what most of the "pro-choice" crowd wants.Those who respect women, you are insane and do not, know that abortion can be a necessary medical procedure. It cannot be banned unless you are willing to let women die, which you are.So, you want to permanently mutilate women's bodies for daring to not do as you command them? And, the anti-choice crowd wonders why the rest of us perceive them as hating women….
It's not about mutilation. It's about responsibility and the consequences of choices. I adore women. I have no use for Feminists. Unfortunately we have far more of the latter than the former in this country.
And that's where the linguistic gymnastics come into play. In order to feel better about what happens during an abortion, we cannot call what is being killed a living human being. Biologically, scientifically, that's what is in there.The problem is your "unborn child" label. There is no such thing. A fetus is not a child. You want to call it a child in order to equate it with a breathing, functioning infant, in order to elicit an emotional response. See, it is a matter of opinion - and a moral position. It is the epitome of trying legislate morality.Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.Except that's not pro-choice. That is the state dictating morality for all. You seem to think that, just because you advocate a more limited government agency (the State, rather than the federal government), that, somehow, that negates it being government mandate. It doesn't. I don't want any government control over people's individual choices. Why do you?
You just told one massive lie. Every crime committed by anyone is a choice and you just said you don't want the government having control over those choices. Who should?
Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.
And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
LMAO, so the unborn child has no right to self preservation? Really? You're advocating taking its most basic possession, its life. How about I leave your shit alone, and just take what you advocate taking from them, you cool with that?
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.
That's really the bottom line, isn't it? It's ridiculous to insist that someone has to have a specific penalty in mind for breaking a law. Causing another human to die carries a wide range of penalties, from none (in the case of self defense) to capital punishment (in the case of deliberate, planned murder). It all depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. A minor girl who has been induced to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge by an unaccountable government school employee with an agenda should suffer a much lesser punishment than a 30 year old woman getting a fourth abortion because she refuses to use contraception.It isn't up to me, that is what I said numerous times. It should be up the citizens of the state.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?Care to pop your head out of your ass and read the posts if you are going to respond to them?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?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.
"A baby in the womb can be moments away from birth, any rational person would consider that a person, not a thing."
Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.