Zone1 Embryos and Personhood

[ding]

The intentional ending of the human life prior to potential viability in the womb is not immoral

It is. That's why they feel bad for doing it.

 

[ding]

That's pretty telling actually. You're logical conclusion of the competing interests between the rights of a person to have control of their body, health and financial future, and another "life" is to make a decision from the person to control those things illegal?

That is what you logically conclude?

If I'm asked to donate a kidney to, let's say my child to make the analogy close, and I refuse, would you come to that same conclusion or would you recognize that me making the selfish choice to preserve myself is an inherent right?

Mind you this is between 2 actual person's.

Not between this

View attachment 922479

and this

View attachment 922480

And seems to me that logic isn't what drives your conclusions.

Yes, that's my logical conclusion. The woman acknowledges she is ending a human life. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. She pays her debt to society and gets to abort her baby.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It is. That's why they feel bad for doing it.

Catholic shaming anti-choice propaganda has affected some women who end up taking Catholic sexual morality to be reality. But it isn’t.

 

[ding]

Catholic shaming anti-choice propaganda has affected some women who end up taking Catholic sexual morality to be reality. But it isn’t.

It's not shaming. It's paying her debt to society for doing a wrong.

 

[forkup]

Yes, that's my logical conclusion. The woman acknowledges she is ending a human life. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. She pays her debt to society and gets to abort her baby.

If I refuse to donate my kidney to a dying person I acknowledge that I'm ending a human life. That doesn't make me indebted to society.

You are saying that picture number 2 has rights I doubt you would give to any actual person.

Not for nothing. I personally know someone who was FORCED to give birth at age twelve. FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS. Something that made it impossible for her to have any further children. And here you are saying that your "compromise" is to magnanimously "only" charge her with a misdemeanor for aborting. And that's your "logical" conclusion?

Neither is she in any way exceptional.

Rape-Related Pregnancies in the 14 US States With Total Abortion Bans

This cross-sectional study estimates the incidence of rape-related pregnancies in US states with abortion bans.

jamanetwork.com

Loading…

www.npr.org

You're talking about wrong. Well to me your position is simply immoral.

 

[ding]

If I refuse to donate my kidney to a dying person I acknowledge that I'm ending a human life. That doesn't make me indebted to society.

You are saying that picture number 2 has rights I doubt you would give to any actual person.

Not for nothing. I personally know someone who was FORCED to give birth at age twelve. FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS. Something that made it impossible for her to have any further children. And here you are saying that your "compromise" is to magnanimously "only" charge her with a misdemeanor for aborting. And that's your "logical" conclusion?

Neither is she in any way exceptional.

Rape-Related Pregnancies in the 14 US States With Total Abortion Bans

This cross-sectional study estimates the incidence of rape-related pregnancies in US states with abortion bans.

jamanetwork.com

Loading…

www.npr.org

I am saying ending a human life is wrong and there has to be some consequence. You arguing there should be no consequence is illogical.

 

[forkup]

I am saying ending a human life is wrong and there has to be some consequence. You arguing there should be no consequence is illogical.

Why is it that on the one hand you assert that it's about competing interests. While on the other claiming that the only valid interests are those of that life in the womb? Thread that needle for me.

 

[forkup]

I am saying ending a human life is wrong and there has to be some consequence. You arguing there should be no consequence is illogical.

And there's nothing illogical about it.

The reason why you don't get the logic is because first off, you believe there's no functional difference between literally a couple of cells and a fully formed human being. And second, you believe those cells have rights you wouldn't assert for actual persons.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I am saying ending a human life is wrong and there has to be some consequence. You arguing there should be no consequence is illogical.

A prima facie subject premise. To suspect there should be a consequence is illogical.

 

[ding]

Why is it that on the one hand you assert that it's about competing interests. While on the other claiming that the only valid interests are those of that life in the womb? Thread that needle for me.

Because I was generically describing competing rights which is what the states will ultimately decide.
The bottom line is that someone's natural rights will be infringed upon.

 

[ding]

And there's nothing illogical about it.

The reason why you don't get the logic is because first off, you believe there's no functional difference between literally a couple of cells and a fully formed human being. And second, you believe those cells have rights you wouldn't assert for actual persons.

Sure there is. If you do something wrong there are consequences. It's illogical for there to not be consequences for ending a human life. You are crying over it being a misdemeanor. It's effectively allowing abortions.

 

[forkup]

Because I was generically describing competing rights which is what the states will ultimately decide.
The bottom line is that someone's natural rights will be infringed upon.

Bodily autonomy is not a natural right?

 

[ding]

A prima facie subject premise. To suspect there should be a consequence is illogical.

No. What you are really arguing for is the child having zero rights which makes the child property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. We've already decided that Dredd Scott was an error.

 

[ding]

Bodily autonomy is not a natural right?

Sure it is. And her right is not being infringed upon just because she had to admit wrong doing to get her abortion.

 

[ding]

What you guys really believe is that the child has zero rights and is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. That's messed up.

 

[forkup]

Sure it is. And her right is not being infringed upon just because she had to admit wrong doing to get her abortion.

Being forced to admit your wrong for exercising your right to have bodily autonomy IS infringing on your rights.

 

[ding]

Being forced to admit your wrong for exercising your right to have bodily autonomy IS infringing on your rights.

So pleading guilty to manslaughter is infringing upon one's rights?

 

[ding]

Being forced to admit your wrong for exercising your right to have bodily autonomy IS infringing on your rights.

Don't you think it is hypocritical for you to take this position and support gun control?

 

[forkup]

Because I was generically describing competing rights which is what the states will ultimately decide.
The bottom line is that someone's natural rights will be infringed upon.

You were describing competing rights for

The mother and the child.

And you are claiming that to you ONLY the rights of the "child" are valid.

I don't care what the States decide. I only care that you can defend your opinion.

I don't think you can because you keep on deflecting from anything that would force you to acknowledge ANY rights for the mother.

 

[ding]

You were describing competing rights for

And you are claiming that to you ONLY the rights of the "child" are valid.

I don't care what the States decide. I only care that you can defend your opinion.

I don't think you can because you keep on deflecting from anything that would force you to acknowledge ANY rights for the mother.

Actually I am arguing the woman's rights outweigh the child's rights. I'm surprised you couldn't see that.