Zone1 Serious Question About Abortion

[martybegan]

Like abortions cause cancer?

Answer my question. Do these places provide healthcare?

 

[martybegan]

It's me trying to find the boundaries of this philosophy of positive obligation. Are pregnant women the only people under this philosophy that have a positive duty to others?

And we have orphanages to care for unwanted children. What we don't do is talk about how we're going to start charging passerbys with murder because a homeless guy starved to death on the side walk. If you want to argue that fetuses and embryos are separate, independent lives just like everyone else then they have a duty to live by their own means or the wilful charity of others. No one is are required by law to house or feed the needy ourselves with our own homes and our food, why should pregnant women have to surrender their bodies to independent life forms?

It's you not understanding the depth of your own argument.

It's you trying to go with hypotheticals instead of arguing the point at hand.

It's trying to deny people any basis for an opinion you don't like by bringing up pointless references to other discussions.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You could care less about born children,

I noticed you didn’t answer the question.

Is it because you’re just too dedicated to your retarded and obvious lie?

Which is it - are you not sharp enough to realize you’re telling an obvious and blatant lie, or are you just doing it maliciously? Pick only one.

And again, how illegal is it to kill born humans? Please do answer. As this rhetorical question will clarify for you and everyone else here that you are spewing nonsensical lies…

 

[otto105]

Answer my question. Do these places provide healthcare?

They provide exactly what healthcare?

Forcing the girl/women to choice their only option provided of birth. They provide no actual healthcare.

 

[otto105]

I noticed you didn’t answer the question.

Is it because you’re just too dedicated to your retarded and obvious lie?

Which is it - are you not sharp enough to realize you’re telling an obvious and blatant lie, or are you just doing it maliciously? Pick only one.

And again, how illegal is it to kill born humans? Please do answer.

Dude, it’s a stupid attempt to equate born people to to zygotes.


You can eat your false equivalence.

 

[martybegan]

They provide exactly what healthcare?

Forcing the girl/women to choice their only option provided of birth. They provide no actual healthcare.

Neonatal checkups, food, vitamins and drugs, actual help with the birth, post natal care, diapers. they do plenty.

The women can always walk away in States with abortion on demand.

Are you saying these women are too dumb to make up their own minds?

Why does anything to do with pregnancy when it comes to healthcare have to include access to abortion?

How about at every abortion clinic law requires a pro life person to be allowed to be in the waiting room?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Dude, it’s a stupid attempt to equate born people to to zygotes.


You can eat your false equivalence.

I will take this as just you admitting you are a malicious liar. Thanks.

In the meantime, your unsupported, stupid, and nonsensical claim that protecting the unborn by law - the same as the born are protected by law - is somehow not caring about the born or treating them with regard or concern… stands utterly rejected. The born are already protected, obviously, duh!

Meanwhile, those of us who believe in equality and want to treat folks the same… you accuse of “false equivalence” out of one side of your mouth while saying we don’t equate them from the other. More lies. Do they ever stop with you? Pathetic.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's you trying to go with hypotheticals instead of arguing the point at hand.

It's trying to deny people any basis for an opinion you don't like by bringing up pointless references to other discussions.

The responsibility that women have to people who you argue are independent life forms is exactly the point at hand. What is the philosophy behind this legal theory?

 

[martybegan]

The responsibility that women have to people who you argue are independent life forms is exactly the point at hand. What is the philosophy behind this legal theory?

Ask a pro-lifer for theirs. Mine is understanding their position. Your counter arguments are deflections merely meant to avoid the actual argument.

 

[Curried Goats]

Ask a pro-lifer for theirs. Mine is understanding their position. Your counter arguments are deflections merely meant to avoid the actual argument.

Are you not a pro-lifer? What is their actual argument then?

 

[martybegan]

Are you not a pro-lifer? What is their actual argument then?

I am a pro-lifer and a realist. Most people won't support full bans, I put the line at 16 weeks for birth control abortions.

Their argument is life begins at conception, and deserves to exist. It's pretty simple.

 

[Curried Goats]

I am a pro-lifer and a realist. Most people won't support full bans, I put the line at 16 weeks for birth control abortions.

If you're a pro-lifer then why were you intimating that "they" were separate from you?

Agreed that most Americans wont accept a full abortion ban. I'd argue viability but we aren't that far apart as to what we think society will ultimately settle for.

Their argument is life begins at conception, and deserves to exist. It's pretty simple.

It's okay if you acknowledge this is your belief while recognizing the political reality. I can accept and appreciate nuance.

I don't disagree that life begins at conception. Whether or not life deserves to exist is, to me, an ambiguous statement. Do you mean in a spiritual or philosophical way? I don't see how that can be argued reasonably. Spirituality isn't supposed to be about reason, it's supposed to be about faith. If, when you say life deserves to exist, you mean legally, well then we are back to what exactly this legal philosophy is and why only pregnant women seem to have a positive duty to life forms in need.

 

[martybegan]

If you're a pro-lifer then why were you intimating that "they" were separate from you?

Agreed that most Americans wont accept a full abortion ban. I'd argue viability but we aren't that far apart as to what we think society will ultimately settle for.

It's okay if you acknowledge this is your belief while recognizing the political reality. I can accept and appreciate nuance.

I don't disagree that life begins at conception. Whether or not life deserves to exist is, to me, an ambiguous statement. Do you mean in a spiritual or philosophical way? I don't see how that can be argued reasonably. Spirituality isn't supposed to be about reason, it's supposed to be about faith. If, when you say life deserves to exist, you mean legally, well then we are back to what exactly this legal philosophy is and why only pregnant women seem to have a positive duty to life forms in need.

According to abortion rights activists, unless I support abortion on demand up until birth, I'm not one of them.

I also see nothing wrong with saying a person who has unprotected sex then has an abortion for convivence is a terrible person. Especially if you combine a barrier birth control technique with a chemical one you can basically reduce the chance of a whoopsie down to less than a tenth of a percent.

Biology decided that they get to bear the burden.

 

[Curried Goats]

According to abortion rights activists, unless I support abortion on demand up until birth, I'm not one of them.

I find it easy not to worry about "them" by simply responding to the words in front of me.

I also see nothing wrong with saying a person who has unprotected sex then has an abortion for convivence is a terrible person.

That's okay. I don't have a problem with you having and expressing a personal opinion.

Especially if you combine a barrier birth control technique with a chemical one you can basically reduce the chance of a whoopsie down to less than a tenth of a percent.

You can. If you have access to them. Or are even educated enough to know how to effectively use them.

Biology decided that they get to bear the burden.

And technology (intuited from our own biological ability) allows us to safely terminate that burden. You are not making a biological argument, you are making a sociological one. What legal obligation should pregnant women have to unwanted life forms growing inside of them? That is the point at hand.

 

[martybegan]

I find it easy not to worry about "them" by simply responding to the words in front of me.

That's okay. I don't have a problem with you having and expressing a personal opinion.

You can. If you have access to them. Or are even educated enough to know how to effectively use them.

And technology (intuited from our own biological ability) allows us to safely terminate that burden. You are not making a biological argument, you are making a sociological one. What legal obligation should pregnant women have to unwanted life forms growing inside of them? That is the point at hand.

They frame the argument from one side. Can't ignore that if you take part in the argument.

Stupidity is not an excuse.

Depending on the law either carry the person to term, or terminate it before the cutoff date.

 

[Curried Goats]

They frame the argument from one side. Can't ignore that if you take part in the argument.

We can ignore them as not being part of this argument.

Stupidity is not an excuse.

Stupid people are some of the last people I want becoming parents. How is you calling these people stupid an argument in favor of society forcing them to have children?

Depending on the law either carry the person to term, or terminate it before the cutoff date.

That's just an argument to follow the law which to me is uninteresting.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

What legal obligation should pregnant women have to unwanted life forms growing inside of them? That is the point at hand.

In any sane and just civilization mothers have parental obligations to provide food and shelter and other such basic care to their own kids unless and until such time as someone else agrees to take on that burden and is capable of doing so.

There is no rational basis for unilateral abdication of this parental responsibility moreover no basis for permissive attitudes towards not only failing to provide for your kid but actively attacking them with intent to kill.

 

[Curried Goats]

In any sane and just civilization mothers have parental obligations to provide food and shelter and other such basic care to their own kids unless and until such time as someone else agrees to take on that burden and is capable of doing so.

There is no rational basis for unilateral abdication of this parental responsibility moreover no basis for permissive attitudes towards not only failing to provide for your kid but actively attacking them with intent to kill.

The problem that I see with this argument, like Marty, is that the people you are intimating are insane and unjust are the very people you are arguing we should force to have kids. Where's the rationale in that?

 

[martybegan]

We can ignore them as not being part of this argument.

Stupid people are some of the last people I want becoming parents. How is you calling these people stupid an argument in favor of society forcing them to have children?

That's just an argument to follow the law which to me is uninteresting.

No, we can't. all data has to be included, and they are part of the set.

First, anyone over the age of 18 who doesn't know what birth control is is either Amish or very very orthodox jewish. 2nd lets leave kids out of this. I would reason that over 90% of the time BC isn't used because people just don't feel like using it.

The law is an extension of the will of society as a whole, as long as it is properly implemented.

 

[martybegan]

The problem that I see with this argument, like Marty, is that the people you are intimating are insane and unjust are the very people you are arguing we should force to have kids. Where's the rationale in that?

Insane and unjust? It's called selfish and lazy.