Zone1 A question for the USMB left.

[beagle9]

Sure. Let's say a mother refuses to donate her kidney to her child although refusing to do so will kill that child. Do you believe that the government has the right to compel that mother to do so?

The reason I give this example is because it seems to me that forcing a mother to go through an unwanted pregnancy with all the discomfort and possible risks that pregnancy entails, puts the rights of that fetus above that of the mother. Something that I think most people would reject in the case when both are undisputable persons.

False equivalency... First thing is this, we aren't dealing with a person that doesn't know that if she let's a young man have sex with her, then she could very easily get impregnated by that young man if not using birth control or birth control methods, so why does she allow herself to just throw caution to the wind like that ? Simple, it's because our government enables the recklessness by promoting it in various forms and/or ways.

If we as a society wouldn't enable things by being so liberal minded about them, and therefore if we were to promote sex only after marriage, and also possibly promote abstinence where it is appropriate or necessary or if we were to promote birth control methods and/or medications, then we might not ever need an abortion clinic and etc again in this nation. We had this under control way back in the day's, but as time slowly went by we could see the changes occurring on a regular basis. Once we got so far out on the limb in this country, it's very hard to come back towards the trunk of the tree, even though we see clearly that the limb is cracking and splintering under the weight of it all.

 

[Orangecat]

Thats ok because you accept the critical fact a ZEF has no consciousness prior to 21 weeks.

Why do you think that’s a critical fact?

 

[IM2]

I find it interesting that right wingers aways have questions for leftists but never answer questions they are asked.

 

[forkup]

False equivalency... First thing is this, we aren't dealing with a person that doesn't know that if she let's a young man have sex with her, then she could very easily get impregnated by that young man if not using birth control or birth control methods, so why does she allow herself to just throw caution to the wind like that ? Simple, it's because our government enables the recklessness by promoting it in various forms and/or ways.

If we as a society wouldn't enable things by being so liberal minded about them, and therefore if we were to promote sex only after marriage, and also possibly promote abstinence where it is appropriate or necessary or if we were to promote birth control methods and/or medications, then we might not ever need an abortion clinic and etc again in this nation. We had this under control way back in the day's, but as time slowly went by we could see the changes occurring on a regular basis. Once we got so far out on the limb in this country, it's very hard to come back towards the trunk of the tree, even though we see clearly that the limb is cracking and splintering under the weight of it all.

Let's start with the fact that I'm not aware of a method of birth control beyond a vasectomy and abstinence that's a hundred percent effective.

As to your first paragraph. It's not a false equivalency. Simply because something has the possibility of occuring doesn't mean you consent to that thing happening and neither does it mean you forfeit the right to make decisions to remedy that thing. Smoking can cause lung-cancer. Would that mean the government can institute a law barring people from getting treatment for that cancer?

I could just as easily argue that bearing a child carries a risk that kid might get sick enough to need an organ from the mother. It still wouldn't mean that mother has an obligation to donate.

 

[forkup]

In my experience, the left is by far the biggest employer of the word "hate" to describe the views of those who disagree with them. If you want to start a similar thread regarding "groomer" or "pedophile", feel free to do so.

That's not my experience. In fact, I'd suggest you go through this OP post by post, and see how many hyperbolic statements it contains from people on the right about leftists. And vice versa.

A simple count should put a lie to your experiences.

The simple fact is that both sides often use those kinds of hyperbolic statements.

 

[forkup]

You're nowhere near as intimidating as you seem to think, kiddo, Regardless, I'll consider myself forewarned. Lol.

No.

That depends on the nature of the decision. Does it directly impact the wellbeing of another human?

"Kiddo?" Now that's interesting. I confess it's been some years when I was last called that.

So if you don't think both a fetus and the mother have the same rights, who's rights are supreme and why?

Let's just assume my medical decision directly affects the well-being of another individual. Do you believe that changes the equation and to what extent?

 

[Care4all]

Silly question since Saul died in 1972.

So why do you like his concepts?

what are his concepts?

 

[Care4all]

Your are falsely equating consciousness with life. it's a human life in its first stages of development. Consciousness, being a complex function, manifests itself somewhere along the path. That doesn't mean it is shared with the mother at any point.

It's a human life once the egg is fertilized under those terms....right?

Are you against IVF procedures which destroys the fertilized eggs not used by the couple once they are done having children?

 

[JoeB131]

False equivalency... First thing is this, we aren't dealing with a person that doesn't know that if she let's a young man have sex with her, then she could very easily get impregnated by that young man if not using birth control or birth control methods, so why does she allow herself to just throw caution to the wind like that ? Simple, it's because our government enables the recklessness by promoting it in various forms and/or ways.

Or, when you are having sex, you are thinking with your little head and not your big head.

If we as a society wouldn't enable things by being so liberal minded about them, and therefore if we were to promote sex only after marriage, and also possibly promote abstinence where it is appropriate or necessary or if we were to promote birth control methods and/or medications, then we might not ever need an abortion clinic and etc again in this nation. We had this under control way back in the day's, but as time slowly went by we could see the changes occurring on a regular basis. Once we got so far out on the limb in this country, it's very hard to come back towards the trunk of the tree, even though we see clearly that the limb is cracking and splintering under the weight of it all.

Uh, guy, here's the thing. the Good Old Days you long for, women were little more than property. It was still legal to rape one's wife in parts of this country until 1994. Women couldn't get bank accounts or credit cards in their own name. And yes, back in the day, when you got a woman pregnant, you were expected to marry her, but more likely, the two of you would just find a doctor who would perform an illegal abortion and write down something else on the chart.

 

[Orangecat]

A simple count should put a lie to your experiences.

A lie to my experiences?
Do you know how dumb that sounds? My experiences are my experiences.

 

[Orangecat]

"Kiddo?" Now that's interesting. I confess it's been some years when I was last called that.

So if you don't think both a fetus and the mother have the same rights, who's rights are supreme and why?

Let's just assume my medical decision directly affects the well-being of another individual. Do you believe that changes the equation and to what extent?

I realize you're triggered here, forky.
Let me put your mind at ease: I'm pro-choice.
Next.

 

[Orangecat]

It's a human life once the egg is fertilized under those terms....right?

Are you against IVF procedures which destroys the fertilized eggs not used by the couple once they are done having children?

Again, I'm pro choice.

 

[forkup]

A lie to my experiences?
Do you know how dumb that sounds? My experiences are my experiences.

A lot of people have all kinds of "experiences", that doesn't mean they're objectively correct. It's kind of a theme in the last couple of election cycles.

 

[forkup]

I realize you're triggered here, forky.
Let me put your mind at ease: I'm pro-choice.
Next.

I'm actually not triggered at all. In my opinion, it's understandable that you replied with the condescending "kiddo", and just now "Forky" remark. Since my post was kind of pompous. The reason why I used that tone was not meant to deride you. It was meant to draw you out since in my "experience" very few people on here are willing to answer an open question. So, by making it a challenge I figured I had a better chance of getting you to actually engage the question.

That's because I'm not here to be in an echo chamber. But rather to see if I can defend my opinions in an honest manner. I can't do that, if I'd get "triggered" easily. Nor do I think "triggering" people for the sake of it is all that productive.

As for your position on abortion. Nothing in your remarks suggested that position nor have your previous comments after a cursory check on USMB, since you explicitly state you only support abortion in the first trimester.

So, my question stands. If I accept that both are human or even persons, (I don't but just for the sake of argument) what about pregnancy can compel one person to make negative health decisions for themselves for the benefit of another?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Again, I'm pro choice.

You oppose a woman’s right to choose if enough white Christian nationalist males control a state government or if white Christian nationalists take over the entire federal government and continue to hang on to an unstoppable white Christian nationalist Supreme Court

In blue states, it's been open season on human beings in their first stages of life for decades.

That is a lie. A ten week fetus never having consciousness need not be granted a right to life as a human being by it’s potential birth mother, if she chooses not to risk her life by giving birth and chooses early to terminate the pregnancy before consciousness in the fetus can be developed.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You regard a pregnant woman as not entitled to an inherent right of bodily autonomy as if she is undeserving of protection from the power of the government to interfere in her life and pursuit of happiness having never committed a crime or cause harm to others.

Is a tiny fetus a person?
Is it a human being?

No and not until a fetus has the capacity to have its own consciousness or its birth mother gives her baby human being status by willfully sharing her consciousness with her unborn child.

There is no inalienable right to abortion, no matter how much you huff and puff and throw tantrums.

Not for you to say,

 

[Oddball]

I have a sincere question for the lefties here.
Why do you so many of you label disagreement as “hate”?
Example:
“I believe marriage is a religious institution, between a man and a woman.”
Lefty answer: “Why do you hate gays?”
Or:
“”I’m against abortion.”
Lefty answer: “Why do you hate women?”

Is it an Alinsky thing, painting your adversaries as extremist haters?
Something else?

Has this been addressed anywhere in the last 4-5 pages?

 

[Orangecat]

A lot of people have all kinds of "experiences", that doesn't mean they're objectively correct. It's kind of a theme in the last couple of election cycles.

Saying my experiences are a lie is just dumb. Don’t make it more dumb with tap dancing.

 

[Orangecat]

I'm actually not triggered at all. In my opinion, it's understandable that you replied with the condescending "kiddo", and just now "Forky" remark. Since my post was kind of pompous. The reason why I used that tone was not meant to deride you. It was meant to draw you out since in my "experience" very few people on here are willing to answer an open question. So, by making it a challenge I figured I had a better chance of getting you to actually engage the question.

That's because I'm not here to be in an echo chamber. But rather to see if I can defend my opinions in an honest manner. I can't do that, if I'd get "triggered" easily. Nor do I think "triggering" people for the sake of it is all that productive.

As for your position on abortion. Nothing in your remarks suggested that position nor have your previous comments after a cursory check on USMB, since you explicitly state you only support abortion in the first trimester.

So, my question stands. If I accept that both are human or even persons, (I don't but just for the sake of argument) what about pregnancy can compel one person to make negative health decisions for themselves for the benefit of another?

Wall of text = lack of context.

 

[Orangecat]

You oppose a woman’s right to choose if enough white Christian nationalist males control a state government or if white Christian nationalists take over the entire federal government

Only a failed intellect attempts to tell others what their positions are. Take your gaslighting straw man back to the kiddie table, son.

 

[Orangecat]

Has this been addressed anywhere in the last 4-5 pages?

View attachment 934516

Mostly triggered useful idiots covering their monitors in spittle. Libs hate being exposed as the emotional hyperbolic dingbats they are.