CDZ Why President Trump will have no 'Choice' but to ban Abortion.

[Chuz Life]

Start a new thread on the rape aspect if you like. But please don't derail this thread with it.

With that, I am off to bed. Work happens.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Sleep well.

Either this is a discussion of the legal ramifications of declaring life begins at conception- or it isn't

Just because you don't want to discuss one of the ramifications of considering life to begin at conception is not a derailment.

Regardless, I (personally) am not going to debate the exceptions in this thread.

Clearly you are certainly unwilling to debate what you don't want to debate in this thread.

Because the idea that the government would force a 12 year old impregnated by her father to stay pregnant to term is pretty ugly.

This last so called message from you is why no one wants to debate liberals, and you in particular. They pull completely false statements like the above out and pretend they are real.

LOL- you don't want to debate anyone- you just want an echo chamber.

IF a fetus is a human being- do you force the pregnant 12 year old victim of rape or incest to go to full term? If not- do you allow her to have an abortion?

Why don't you start a new thread on it and I will debate you on it - there?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
I want consistency in our laws.

Do you agree that it is an inconsistency for a bank robber to be charged with MURDER for even accidentally killing a child in the womb during a criminal act. . . but if the same woman INTENTIONALLY kills that same child by starving it to death or by ingesting drugs to kill it will face no charges at all?

I don't think you do. You want laws to stop abortions.

Laws which criminalize abortions are consistent with our laws against assault and murder. More importantly, laws banning abortion would be consistent with the 'equal protections' clause of our Constitution.

I do agree it is inconsistent for a bank robber to be charged with murder for accidentally terminating a woman's pregnancy- I think frankly its wrong.

So far, the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that and they are declining many opportunities to overturn those laws and convictions.

Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws

(All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were based at least in part on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, unless otherwise noted.)

And that is with a Supreme Court that is yet to receive any appointees from (soon to be) President - Donald Trump.

I think that the law was put in place for exactly the purpose you are using it- to lay the frame work to claim that a 5 week old fetus is a human being and to outlaw abortion.

Like I said in the OP. Just as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart anticipated COULD happen. Hie words did not fall on deaf ears.

Again- you have no problem with the inconsistency when it comes to treating a miscarriage as something different from the death of a living child.

All miscarriages are deaths of once living children. However, not all miscarriages are the result of criminal acts. Only a simpleton would try to paint them all with one broad brush stroke.

All deaths of a child are deaths of a once living child. However, not all deaths of a child are criminal acts.

True. Some children die of natural causes.

That is what I just said. Isn't it?

Either a miscarriage is treated the same as a child's death- or it isn't.

And if it isn't? Then what?

What do you intend to do about it?

If it is, every miscarriage will have to be reported, every miscarriage will have to have the cause of death established.

And if they are not?

Then what?

Will you protest that we need to crack down harder on women who have has a miscarriage?

I seriously doubt that you will. And that's why all this blather about it is nothing more than a red herring and fear mongering. Lawmakers are not now and will never be required to treat every miscarriage as a possible criminal act just because the practice of abortion has been criminalized.

If and when abortion is finally banned, Women will be no less considered "innocent until PROVEN guilty" than they are today.

And pregnant women who neglect their pregnancy will have to be charged just as mothers who neglectfully allow their children to become poisoned by nicotine.

I agree that in cases where the abuse and neglect can be PROVEN, the woman should be held accountable for that abuse. But where do you get the "have to be" from?

Can you at least be honest and admit that it is only your own expectations that you are talking about and NOT necessarily what will actually be the result of these policies?

If you want consistency- something you have said you want- then you should be advocating treating pregnant women just as the mothers of live children.

You are right though- there is nothing that says that if abortion is outlawed that the laws will be consistent or enforced consistently.

But if the law is changed to recognize that life begins at conception- then pregnant women can be held to exactly the same requirements as the mothers of living children including:

• Requiring that miscarriages be reported just as the death of a living child.
• Investigating miscarriages exactly as the death of a living child.

That is not fear mongering- that is pointing out the obvious consequences of labeling a 3 week old fetus a person.

 

[Syriusly]

Sleep well.

Either this is a discussion of the legal ramifications of declaring life begins at conception- or it isn't

Just because you don't want to discuss one of the ramifications of considering life to begin at conception is not a derailment.

Regardless, I (personally) am not going to debate the exceptions in this thread.

Clearly you are certainly unwilling to debate what you don't want to debate in this thread.

Because the idea that the government would force a 12 year old impregnated by her father to stay pregnant to term is pretty ugly.

This last so called message from you is why no one wants to debate liberals, and you in particular. They pull completely false statements like the above out and pretend they are real.

LOL- you don't want to debate anyone- you just want an echo chamber.

IF a fetus is a human being- do you force the pregnant 12 year old victim of rape or incest to go to full term? If not- do you allow her to have an abortion?

Why don't you start a new thread on it and I will debate you on it - there?

I don't start abortion threads- rarely participate in them.

 

[Chuz Life]

Regardless, I (personally) am not going to debate the exceptions in this thread.

Clearly you are certainly unwilling to debate what you don't want to debate in this thread.

Because the idea that the government would force a 12 year old impregnated by her father to stay pregnant to term is pretty ugly.

This last so called message from you is why no one wants to debate liberals, and you in particular. They pull completely false statements like the above out and pretend they are real.

LOL- you don't want to debate anyone- you just want an echo chamber.

IF a fetus is a human being- do you force the pregnant 12 year old victim of rape or incest to go to full term? If not- do you allow her to have an abortion?

Why don't you start a new thread on it and I will debate you on it - there?

I don't start abortion threads- rarely participate in them.

I can see why.

 

[candycorn]

Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

A woman’s right to privacy? I don’t think the oath of office allows the President to usurp the doctor/patient confidentiality.

Does anyone have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of another human being / Person and to shield that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?(sic)"

I, for one, don't think they do.

Neither do I. Now if the fetus was a person, you’d have something other than a bunch of meaningless texts. Sorry.

 

[Chuz Life]

[Q
I want consistency in our laws.

Do you agree that it is an inconsistency for a bank robber to be charged with MURDER for even accidentally killing a child in the womb during a criminal act. . . but if the same woman INTENTIONALLY kills that same child by starving it to death or by ingesting drugs to kill it will face no charges at all?

I don't think you do. You want laws to stop abortions.

Laws which criminalize abortions are consistent with our laws against assault and murder. More importantly, laws banning abortion would be consistent with the 'equal protections' clause of our Constitution.

I do agree it is inconsistent for a bank robber to be charged with murder for accidentally terminating a woman's pregnancy- I think frankly its wrong.

So far, the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that and they are declining many opportunities to overturn those laws and convictions.

Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws

(All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were based at least in part on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, unless otherwise noted.)

And that is with a Supreme Court that is yet to receive any appointees from (soon to be) President - Donald Trump.

I think that the law was put in place for exactly the purpose you are using it- to lay the frame work to claim that a 5 week old fetus is a human being and to outlaw abortion.

Like I said in the OP. Just as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart anticipated COULD happen. Hie words did not fall on deaf ears.

Again- you have no problem with the inconsistency when it comes to treating a miscarriage as something different from the death of a living child.

All miscarriages are deaths of once living children. However, not all miscarriages are the result of criminal acts. Only a simpleton would try to paint them all with one broad brush stroke.

All deaths of a child are deaths of a once living child. However, not all deaths of a child are criminal acts.

True. Some children die of natural causes.

That is what I just said. Isn't it?

Either a miscarriage is treated the same as a child's death- or it isn't.

And if it isn't? Then what?

What do you intend to do about it?

If it is, every miscarriage will have to be reported, every miscarriage will have to have the cause of death established.

And if they are not?

Then what?

Will you protest that we need to crack down harder on women who have has a miscarriage?

I seriously doubt that you will. And that's why all this blather about it is nothing more than a red herring and fear mongering. Lawmakers are not now and will never be required to treat every miscarriage as a possible criminal act just because the practice of abortion has been criminalized.

If and when abortion is finally banned, Women will be no less considered "innocent until PROVEN guilty" than they are today.

And pregnant women who neglect their pregnancy will have to be charged just as mothers who neglectfully allow their children to become poisoned by nicotine.

I agree that in cases where the abuse and neglect can be PROVEN, the woman should be held accountable for that abuse. But where do you get the "have to be" from?

Can you at least be honest and admit that it is only your own expectations that you are talking about and NOT necessarily what will actually be the result of these policies?

If you want consistency- something you have said you want- then you should be advocating treating pregnant women just as the mothers of live children.

We (society) can do exactly that - without taking it to the extremes that you have predicted "will have to be" the case.

You are right though- there is nothing that says that if abortion is outlawed that the laws will be consistent or enforced consistently.

Pretty much, same as it ever was.

But if the law is changed to recognize that life begins at conception- then pregnant women can be held to exactly the same requirements as the mothers of living children including:

• Requiring that miscarriages be reported just as the death of a living child.
• Investigating miscarriages exactly as the death of a living child.

That is not fear mongering- that is pointing out the obvious consequences of labeling a 3 week old fetus a person.

And I ask again. . .

"If they are NOT "held to exactly the same requirements?"

What then?

What are you going to do about it?

What do you intend to do about it?

 

[Chuz Life]

Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

A woman’s right to privacy? I don’t think the oath of office allows the President to usurp the doctor/patient confidentiality.

Does anyone have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of another human being / Person and to shield that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?(sic)"

I, for one, don't think they do.

Neither do I. Now if the fetus was a person, you’d have something other than a bunch of meaningless texts. Sorry.

We already have many laws which make the killing of a child in the womb during a criminal act a crime of murder.

I ask you.

Given the legal definition for Murder, can a person be charged with murder for killing anything other than another "person?"

 

[candycorn]

Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

A woman’s right to privacy? I don’t think the oath of office allows the President to usurp the doctor/patient confidentiality.

Does anyone have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of another human being / Person and to shield that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?(sic)"

I, for one, don't think they do.

Neither do I. Now if the fetus was a person, you’d have something other than a bunch of meaningless texts. Sorry.

We already have many laws which make the killing of a child in the womb during a criminal act a crime of murder.

I ask you.

Given the legal definition for Murder, can a person be charged with murder for killing anything other than another "person?"

A fetus is not a person. Thanks for playing.

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

A woman’s right to privacy? I don’t think the oath of office allows the President to usurp the doctor/patient confidentiality.

Does anyone have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of another human being / Person and to shield that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?(sic)"

I, for one, don't think they do.

Neither do I. Now if the fetus was a person, you’d have something other than a bunch of meaningless texts. Sorry.

We already have many laws which make the killing of a child in the womb during a criminal act a crime of murder.

I ask you.

Given the legal definition for Murder, can a person be charged with murder for killing anything other than another "person?"

A fetus is not a person. Thanks for playing.

Denial is not an argument.

Denial is a drug of choice though. Isn't it.

You should try selling your denials to those already doing time for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

I'm sure their defense attorneys will pay you top dollar for your expertise on the subject.

 

[candycorn]

A woman’s right to privacy? I don’t think the oath of office allows the President to usurp the doctor/patient confidentiality.

Does anyone have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of another human being / Person and to shield that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?(sic)"

I, for one, don't think they do.

Neither do I. Now if the fetus was a person, you’d have something other than a bunch of meaningless texts. Sorry.

We already have many laws which make the killing of a child in the womb during a criminal act a crime of murder.

I ask you.

Given the legal definition for Murder, can a person be charged with murder for killing anything other than another "person?"

A fetus is not a person. Thanks for playing.

Denial is not an argument.

Denial is a drug of choice though. Isn't it.

You should try selling your denials to those already doing time for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

I'm sure their defense attorneys will pay you top dollar for your expertise on the subject.

Well, I don’t know what to tell you. If you wish to charge a woman with murder who has had an abortion…I guess you can file suit. Just be prepared to pay their court costs.

 

[Chuz Life]

Does anyone have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of another human being / Person and to shield that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?(sic)"

I, for one, don't think they do.

Neither do I. Now if the fetus was a person, you’d have something other than a bunch of meaningless texts. Sorry.

We already have many laws which make the killing of a child in the womb during a criminal act a crime of murder.

I ask you.

Given the legal definition for Murder, can a person be charged with murder for killing anything other than another "person?"

A fetus is not a person. Thanks for playing.

Denial is not an argument.

Denial is a drug of choice though. Isn't it.

You should try selling your denials to those already doing time for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

I'm sure their defense attorneys will pay you top dollar for your expertise on the subject.

Well, I don’t know what to tell you. If you wish to charge a woman with murder who has had an abortion…I guess you can file suit. Just be prepared to pay their court costs.

Ummmmm do you seriously believe a person can file a lawsuit against someone as a means to bring criminal charges?

 

[candycorn]

Neither do I. Now if the fetus was a person, you’d have something other than a bunch of meaningless texts. Sorry.

We already have many laws which make the killing of a child in the womb during a criminal act a crime of murder.

I ask you.

Given the legal definition for Murder, can a person be charged with murder for killing anything other than another "person?"

A fetus is not a person. Thanks for playing.

Denial is not an argument.

Denial is a drug of choice though. Isn't it.

You should try selling your denials to those already doing time for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

I'm sure their defense attorneys will pay you top dollar for your expertise on the subject.

Well, I don’t know what to tell you. If you wish to charge a woman with murder who has had an abortion…I guess you can file suit. Just be prepared to pay their court costs.

Ummmmm do you seriously believe a person can file a lawsuit against someone as a means to bring criminal charges?

In your world or in what the rest of us call reality?

 

[Chuz Life]

We already have many laws which make the killing of a child in the womb during a criminal act a crime of murder.

I ask you.

Given the legal definition for Murder, can a person be charged with murder for killing anything other than another "person?"

A fetus is not a person. Thanks for playing.

Denial is not an argument.

Denial is a drug of choice though. Isn't it.

You should try selling your denials to those already doing time for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

I'm sure their defense attorneys will pay you top dollar for your expertise on the subject.

Well, I don’t know what to tell you. If you wish to charge a woman with murder who has had an abortion…I guess you can file suit. Just be prepared to pay their court costs.

Ummmmm do you seriously believe a person can file a lawsuit against someone as a means to bring criminal charges?

In your world or in what the rest of us call reality?

It was a question to you based on what you said I should do.

 

[Divine Wind]

How are you comparing these too arguments?? Where are these vans full of mexican families getting dumped out in the middle of the desert? Secondly, the mothers your referring are making a decision to come to America illegally, knowing that if they get caught, by law they get deported, just like every other country on the planet. These mothers arent just magically appearing here, nor are they being deported to the middle of the desert. These are choices they're making with risks involved.

Just like it's a choice to participate in the act of REPRODUCTION. And if you participate in reproduction without contraceptives, babies tend to happen. Or should we not expect people to be responsible for their actions? And do not throw out the red herring of rape and incest, becaus that is .0002.% of the abortions, I'm not referring to that.

America also has some of the loosest abortion laws in the world, more so than much of Europe.

It reveals the inherent hypocrisy of those who use a religious argument (a person becomes a person at conception) over the scientific argument (a person doesn't become a human being until it develops up to a specific level, usually about 24 weeks) vs those who don't give a shit what happens to actual living, breathing walking people of all ages just because of the color of their skin, the language they speak or their nationality. Heck, most of them have no problem with the death penalty and would cut off all poor families in America with "get a fucking job" or starve.

 

[sakinago]

How are you comparing these too arguments?? Where are these vans full of mexican families getting dumped out in the middle of the desert? Secondly, the mothers your referring are making a decision to come to America illegally, knowing that if they get caught, by law they get deported, just like every other country on the planet. These mothers arent just magically appearing here, nor are they being deported to the middle of the desert. These are choices they're making with risks involved.

Just like it's a choice to participate in the act of REPRODUCTION. And if you participate in reproduction without contraceptives, babies tend to happen. Or should we not expect people to be responsible for their actions? And do not throw out the red herring of rape and incest, becaus that is .0002.% of the abortions, I'm not referring to that.

America also has some of the loosest abortion laws in the world, more so than much of Europe.

It reveals the inherent hypocrisy of those who use a religious argument (a person becomes a person at conception) over the scientific argument (a person doesn't become a human being until it develops up to a specific level, usually about 24 weeks) vs those who don't give a shit what happens to actual living, breathing walking people of all ages just because of the color of their skin, the language they speak or their nationality. Heck, most of them have no problem with the death penalty and would cut off all poor families in America with "get a fucking job" or starve.

I've never made this argument on a religious basis. Nor is an abstract concept like personhood is as clearly defined in your a priori argument there. I dont want people to suffer, but people also have to be responsible for their choices, that's not a wild concept I'm throwing out.

Tell me your thoughts on the terry chiavo case.

 

[Divine Wind]

I've never made this argument on a religious basis. Nor is an abstract concept like personhood is as clearly defined in your a priori argument there. I dont want people to suffer, but people also have to be responsible for their choices, that's not a wild concept I'm throwing out.

Tell me your thoughts on the terry chiavo case.

Are you making a claim that a zygote is equally to a human being? People?

Dude, a zygote doesn't even have a nervous system so how can it feel pain or contemplate it's place in the universe? A zygote doesn't have a brain nor blood. The only relation it has to human beings is its DNA, just like the cheek cells you wash down the sink every day when you brush your teeth. While it certainly has the potential to grow into a human being, it is not one...yet.

Make people accept responsibility for their mistakes by forcing a child on them? Aren't you intentionally harming two people at that point? What is the point? What about Zika babies or other similarly highly deformed fetuses? "That's what you get for having a fucking retard, dammit!"

You ridicule me for comparing two arguments then raise a straw man about Terri Schiavo? If she was an illegal Mexican would you pull the plug on her or just pack her off to the border with a battery pack that would die about the time she arrived in Mexico?

 

[mamooth]

]
What what what??? What period fantasy tv dramas are you getting you're info from?

I should ask that of you, being you seem to have gotten your knowledge entirely from TV shows about the Puritans.

And then you're antithesis supports slavery as a viable counter point (even though Jefferson, along with a very large majority of the founders, were the first abolistionist.)

As slaves are people, that point flops.

So, how many abortions were happening with approval of the public at the time the constitution was written? Puhlease pull up that statistic for all of us. Pretty pretty please.

Unlike you with your attempts at historical revisionism, I can back up what I say.

Abortion in early America. - PubMed - NCBI
---
Abstract
This piece describes abortion practices in use from the 1600s to the 19th century among the inhabitants of North America. The abortive techniques of women from different ethnic and racial groups as found in historical literature are revealed. Thus, the point is made that abortion is not simply a "now issue" that effects select women. Instead, it is demonstrated that it is a widespread practice as solidly rooted in our past as it is in the present.

PIP:
Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. Although abortion was legalized in 1970, many women are still forced to obtain illegal abortion or to perform self-abortions due to the economic constraints imposed by the Hyde Amendment and the unavailability of services in many areas. Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era.
---

Here's another piece discussing it. What laws that were on the books forbid abortion after "quickening", when the fetus started moving, and thus would not have forbidden early abortions.

American Creation: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America

 

[sakinago]

I've never made this argument on a religious basis. Nor is an abstract concept like personhood is as clearly defined in your a priori argument there. I dont want people to suffer, but people also have to be responsible for their choices, that's not a wild concept I'm throwing out.

Tell me your thoughts on the terry chiavo case.

Are you making a claim that a zygote is equally to a human being? People?

Dude, a zygote doesn't even have a nervous system so how can it feel pain or contemplate it's place in the universe? A zygote doesn't have a brain nor blood. The only relation it has to human beings is its DNA, just like the cheek cells you wash down the sink every day when you brush your teeth. While it certainly has the potential to grow into a human being, it is not one...yet.

Make people accept responsibility for their mistakes by forcing a child on them? Aren't you intentionally harming two people at that point? What is the point? What about Zika babies or other similarly highly deformed fetuses? "That's what you get for having a fucking retard, dammit!"

You ridicule me for comparing two arguments then raise a straw man about Terri Schiavo? If she was an illegal Mexican would you pull the plug on her or just pack her off to the border with a battery pack that would die about the time she arrived in Mexico?

I've never made this argument on a religious basis. Nor is an abstract concept like personhood is as clearly defined in your a priori argument there. I dont want people to suffer, but people also have to be responsible for their choices, that's not a wild concept I'm throwing out.

Tell me your thoughts on the terry chiavo case.

Are you making a claim that a zygote is equally to a human being? People?

Dude, a zygote doesn't even have a nervous system so how can it feel pain or contemplate it's place in the universe? A zygote doesn't have a brain nor blood. The only relation it has to human beings is its DNA, just like the cheek cells you wash down the sink every day when you brush your teeth. While it certainly has the potential to grow into a human being, it is not one...yet.

Make people accept responsibility for their mistakes by forcing a child on them? Aren't you intentionally harming two people at that point? What is the point? What about Zika babies or other similarly highly deformed fetuses? "That's what you get for having a fucking retard, dammit!"

You ridicule me for comparing two arguments then raise a straw man about Terri Schiavo? If she was an illegal Mexican would you pull the plug on her or just pack her off to the border with a battery pack that would die about the time she arrived in Mexico?

Since your talking about straw men, let's talk about how you rush to compare zygotes to people (that's a big ol' straw man). Almost 100% of mothers don't even know their pregnant when the zygote stage is going on. That's does not apply to the millions of abortions that go on. And I'm not comparing, I'm saying they still deserve the right to life. And here's the difference between dead skin cells falling out of your cheek, and a zygote (your non-sequitar)...dead cheek cells don't grow up into seperate people in a matter of months. That's a pretty big difference that you want to gloss over.

Nobody is forcing children upon people. Your argument suggest that the govt has robots designed insemenating women against their will. We both know that's not the case. Again they are making choices that can have consequences. And when's the last time you heard a woman regret her children? They may have some regrets on timing, but if asked, they'd say they wouldn't change a thing. Because children are seen as blessings to non-mentally ill parents. Let's also not pretend like contraceptives are hard to come by, especially in this day and age. And to combat another straw man you threw out...why would someone ever say "that's what you get for having a fucking retard, dammit." Get back to reality here, and stop beating up on straw men that don't exist.

Ugh god...and your last paragraph, do I really have to repeat myself, and point out that ridiculous straw man. It's also another logical fallacy known as a red herring, so let's get back to it...what are your thoughts on the chiavo case (I don't really care either way, it's a tough case, just humor me for second).

 

[Divine Wind]

Since your talking about straw men, let's talk about how you rush to compare zygotes to people (that's a big ol' straw man). Almost 100% of mothers don't even know their pregnant when the zygote stage is going on. That's does not apply to the millions of abortions that go on. And I'm not comparing, I'm saying they still deserve the right to life. And here's the difference between dead skin cells falling out of your cheek, and a zygote (your non-sequitar)...dead cheek cells don't grow up into seperate people in a matter of months. That's a pretty big difference that you want to gloss over.

Nobody is forcing children upon people. Your argument suggest that the govt has robots designed insemenating women against their will. We both know that's not the case. Again they are making choices that can have consequences. And when's the last time you heard a woman regret her children? They may have some regrets on timing, but if asked, they'd say they wouldn't change a thing. Because children are seen as blessings to non-mentally ill parents. Let's also not pretend like contraceptives are hard to come by, especially in this day and age. And to combat another straw man you threw out...why would someone ever say "that's what you get for having a fucking retard, dammit." Get back to reality here, and stop beating up on straw men that don't exist.

Ugh god...and your last paragraph, do I really have to repeat myself, and point out that ridiculous straw man. It's also another logical fallacy known as a red herring, so let's get back to it...what are your thoughts on the chiavo case (I don't really care either way, it's a tough case, just humor me for second).

Dude, go look in a mirror. The thread asserts a zygote is a "person". A human being. If you don't want to talk about the subject fine, but please drop the pretense that it is I bringing up strawmen and red herrings.

 

[sakinago]

Since your talking about straw men, let's talk about how you rush to compare zygotes to people (that's a big ol' straw man). Almost 100% of mothers don't even know their pregnant when the zygote stage is going on. That's does not apply to the millions of abortions that go on. And I'm not comparing, I'm saying they still deserve the right to life. And here's the difference between dead skin cells falling out of your cheek, and a zygote (your non-sequitar)...dead cheek cells don't grow up into seperate people in a matter of months. That's a pretty big difference that you want to gloss over.

Nobody is forcing children upon people. Your argument suggest that the govt has robots designed insemenating women against their will. We both know that's not the case. Again they are making choices that can have consequences. And when's the last time you heard a woman regret her children? They may have some regrets on timing, but if asked, they'd say they wouldn't change a thing. Because children are seen as blessings to non-mentally ill parents. Let's also not pretend like contraceptives are hard to come by, especially in this day and age. And to combat another straw man you threw out...why would someone ever say "that's what you get for having a fucking retard, dammit." Get back to reality here, and stop beating up on straw men that don't exist.

Ugh god...and your last paragraph, do I really have to repeat myself, and point out that ridiculous straw man. It's also another logical fallacy known as a red herring, so let's get back to it...what are your thoughts on the chiavo case (I don't really care either way, it's a tough case, just humor me for second).

Dude, go look in a mirror. The thread asserts a zygote is a "person". A human being. If you don't want to talk about the subject fine, but please drop the pretense that it is I bringing up strawmen and red herrings.

You're straw man is that I'm comparing a zygote to a fully developed human person. That's exactly what a straw man is. If your going to throw out the term straw man, know what it is, and don't use it multiple times in a single post. And yes you are using red herrings as well, "if Chiavo was an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT..." what in the world does immigration have to do with me asking your thoughts on chiavo??