- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I really would like to understand the pro-choice POV as it relates to life
Posted on 7/21/19 at 12:53 pm to threeputt
Posted on 7/21/19 at 12:53 pm to threeputt
quote:Another poster is misleading you, likely out of utter ignorance.quote:This line of thought drives me up a wall. They HAD the right to choose before they got pregnant. They chose a behavior and now they don’t want to live with the outcome of that choice.
The woman explains repeatedly that’s it’s all about the woman’s right to choose.
It also is crazy to me that the man is never given a voice in this debate. Once a women gets pregnant, they are only a vessel at that point to bring a child into this world. I’m sorry, but that is the way nature works. Your a vessel. She didn’t get to that point alone so why is her opinion the only one that matters?
Whatever “right to life” a fetus may have in the context of abortion (the existence of ANY such right is entirely debatable), it is a negative right rather than a positive right. The distinction is not a complex one. Prof. Aeon Skoble describes the key differences between positive and negative rights, as follows:
quote:The “right” under debate is the “right” to NOT have someone kill you, NOT a “right” to have another person provide you with a good or service. There is no “consensual arrangement” between a pregnant woman and a non-sapient fetus.
Fundamentally, positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. If we are free and equal by nature, and if we believe in negative rights, any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements.
This post was edited on 7/21/19 at 1:20 pm
0
Posted on 7/21/19 at 12:55 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:wrong. it has been a person since the moment of conception.
when it starts having brain activity at 10 weeks is the first time you can even make the argument it is a human
quote:silly. read this
the fetus cannot live without the mom until 20 weeks
quote:nope. at no point does the woman have the right to murder the baby merely for the sake of convenience. it's unbelievable people can't get this through their heads
up until 20 weeks the fetus is part of her body and she should be able to do what she wants, regardless of reason
quote:that she can give up for adoption. she loses nothing
forcing a women to have a child is awful
quote:how do you know?
no good will come of it
quote:do you know how many people are paying tens of thousands of dollars to get a russian or chinese baby?
it will force hundreds of thousands of children into our shittu foster care system
quote:first, she would be doing the right thing morally. second, murdering the baby is wronger
forcing a women to have a child she doesn't want is wrong
Posted on 7/21/19 at 1:19 pm to bfniii
quote:
wrong. it has been a person since the moment of conception.
Science says otherwise, that's just stupid.
quote:
silly. read this
Dude, science. There has only been 1 baby, that has been recorded to survive before 24 weeks. The miracle baby in Texas that was born at 21 weeks. So that's why I said 20, because it is scientifically impossible, I dont care what you're Christian website says.
quote:
nope. at no point does the woman have the right to murder the baby merely for the sake of convenience. it's unbelievable people can't get this through their heads
It's not murder if the fetus cant live outside the womb.
I dont care about your personal opinion, I use science. Also have you ever adopted or fostered? If not you are another pro lifer who doesn't give a frick about the child after they are born. There are hundreds of thousands of children like I was that were born to parents that didnt want them and had to go into the foster system. I 100% would have rather been aborted than go through my childhood again. Until you've lived it, been born to a mother who didnt want you, you have no say in this. Nothing good will come of forcing a women to have a child. I saw it everyday my first 18 years of life.
Posted on 7/21/19 at 1:19 pm to threeputt
quote:Yes, a woman has a right to choose whether to have sex. You are entirely correct. Where you err is in contending that her rights terminate at that point and in asserting that she does not also have the right to determine whether to continue an unwanted pregnancy.quote:This line of thought drives me up a wall. They HAD the right to choose before they got pregnant. They chose a behavior and now they don’t want to live with the outcome of that choice.
The woman explains repeatedly that’s it’s all about the woman’s right to choose.
It also is crazy to me that the man is never given a voice in this debate. Once a women gets pregnant, they are only a vessel at that point to bring a child into this world. I’m sorry, but that is the way nature works. Your a vessel. She didn’t get to that point alone so why is her opinion the only one that matters?
You may well believe that her exercise of that right is morally reprehensible at any point after her partner shoots his wad. The VAST majority of the population disagrees with you. For example, more than 80% of the population supports the “morning after” pill, and more than half of the population supports a right to abortion in the VERY early stages of pregnancy ... though each person’s definition of “very early” varies.
Essentially, you argue that a woman should avoid a perfectly-legal activity (sex) in order to assure that she will not need to avail herself of another perfectly-legal activity (elective, early-term abortion). I make no apologies for stating that this viewpoint is insane.
The rights of her partner are actually an interesting issue that really deserves its own thread. In essence, it boils down to whether a male’s desire to be a father can or should override a female’s right to bodily self-determination.
When the technology exists to effortlessly remove an embryo from the female’s uterus and give it to a male who wants to find it a new uterus, I think that there exist decent arguments that the male should have that option. Until that time, the female’s right to control her own body will take precedence over a male’s desire to use HER body against her will to gestate an organism that only HE wants and that she definitively does NOT want to host.
You may remember that whole “involuntary servitude” thing. They had a war over it and everything.
This post was edited on 7/21/19 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 7/21/19 at 1:29 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:Science cannot resolve the question of “personhood.” The advent of “personhood” is a philosophical question, that gives rise to a legal question.quote:Science says otherwise, that's just stupid.
it has been a person since the moment of conception.
From a scientific perspective, there is no valid argument that even a mere blastocyst is not genetically a distinct organism of the species homo sapiens sapiens. The issue under debate is whether mere genetics can or should give rise to legal rights for an organism that is not yet sapient.
Someone will doubtless reeeeeeeee about the sapience of old people and people in comas or in a PVS (or the even-dumber argument about people who are simply sleeping).
That entire line of discussion is a stinky, days-old, red-herring. I am not aware of any serious analyst who contends that the “right to life” (which has already VESTED) can OR SHOULD be taken away without due process of law.
This post was edited on 7/21/19 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 7/21/19 at 1:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Science cannot resolve the question of “personhood.” The advent of “personhood” is a philosophical question, that gives rise to a legal question.
Science says what makes you, you is your brain so I'm going off that. I also think its fricked up when people keep someone on life support when they are brain dead because of a .000001% chance of a miracle but understand why that right is available.
This post was edited on 7/21/19 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 7/21/19 at 1:47 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:I agree completely. The Terri Schiavo debacle was a tragedy.
I ... think its fricked up when people keep someone on life support when they are brain dead because of a .000001% chance of a miracle but understand why that right is available.
Posted on 7/21/19 at 1:50 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:link?
Science says otherwise
quote:not that this has anything to do with personhood
There has only been 1 baby, that has been recorded to survive before 24 weeks
quote:good old genetic fallacy. you didn't even try to deal with the info that was offered. here's a question, why don't you care what it says? what if it's right?
I dont care what you're Christian website says
quote:prove it. it most certainly is because you are killing a person and science does not deny this one bit
It's not murder if the fetus cant live outside the womb
quote:i couldn't care less what you care about
I dont care about your personal opinion
quote:
I use science
you people never fail to entertain. first, no one "uses" science. second, science makes no claim one way or the other on personhood. you know why right? third, you haven't posted anything scientific. just your opinion. quote:so if a person hasn't adopted, they can't advocate adoption? regardless of whether i have not, i know people who have so i know for a fact that pregnant women can go that route. as for your specific question, it's stupid because i could lie one way or the other and you wouldn't know. not that it matters anyway. it is a fact that babies can be given up for adoption thus avoiding the morally reprehensible act of murder for the sake of convenience.
Also have you ever adopted or fostered? If not you are another pro lifer who doesn't give a frick about the child after they are born
quote:this is called anecdotal evidence. moreover, you are conflating 2 different issues. problems in the foster system do not make murder for the sake of convenience morally acceptable. but you knew that already, didn't you?
There are hundreds of thousands of children like I was that were born to parents that didnt want them and had to go into the foster system
quote:
I 100% would have rather been aborted than go through my childhood again
this is by far the most bizarre statement i have ever read on this board. congrats? you wouldn't even have lived to know you could make this statement. my word there are some mentally disturbed people in this world. there's no way to be rational with you on this issue quote:prove it.
Nothing good will come of forcing a women to have a child
quote:anecdotal
I saw it everyday my first 18 years of life.
Posted on 7/21/19 at 2:03 pm to bfniii
Really, based on everything that has been voiced by the pro-abortion side boils down to this: It's only a life if the woman pregnant with it wants it, and calls it "her baby."
Notice how the "Lawmaker" in Publix threw out, "I'm nine months pregnant!" Boy the liberals want to run with that. OMG, she's 9 months pregnant! Wait a minute, if what she has in her isn't even a person worthy of life, why should we care this woman has something in her stomach? I may go in there with a belly full of Fudrucker's, so I should be able to go through the express lane if I'm within 10-15 items of the limit?
Career Politicians, mostly liberals and rhinos, just change the rules and morals to fit what will profit them the most at the time. Then they argue vehemently from either direction, as if the other arguments they made in the past never happened. Sadly, far too many sheep buy into it.
Notice how the "Lawmaker" in Publix threw out, "I'm nine months pregnant!" Boy the liberals want to run with that. OMG, she's 9 months pregnant! Wait a minute, if what she has in her isn't even a person worthy of life, why should we care this woman has something in her stomach? I may go in there with a belly full of Fudrucker's, so I should be able to go through the express lane if I'm within 10-15 items of the limit?
Career Politicians, mostly liberals and rhinos, just change the rules and morals to fit what will profit them the most at the time. Then they argue vehemently from either direction, as if the other arguments they made in the past never happened. Sadly, far too many sheep buy into it.
Posted on 7/21/19 at 2:06 pm to bfniii
quote:
this is by far the most bizarre statement i have ever read on this board. congrats? you wouldn't even have lived to know you could make this statement. my word there are some mentally disturbed people in this world. there's no way to be rational with you on this issue
Until you lived my life, in the foster system and what happened to me and my sister you have no right to say what I said is bizarre or that I'm mentally disturbed. I would never want to live through it again or subject anyone too it. You can happily frick off with that.
Also abortion isnt murder, it's perfectly legal and will be for the foreseeable future.
The thing is, I don't even personally advocate for abortion because I think it's wrong. Doesn't mean we can tell a women what see can do with her body, and yes a fetus is apart of her body until it can live outside the womb.
Posted on 7/21/19 at 2:19 pm to Muleriderhog
Posted on 7/22/19 at 9:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:correct. She does not have the right to murder a baby for the sake of convenience. It's crazy people don't know this.
her rights terminate at that point and in asserting that she does not also have the right to determine whether to continue an unwanted pregnancy
quote:not that this has anything to do with the morality of the situation
The VAST majority of the population disagrees with you.
Posted on 7/22/19 at 9:17 am to AggieHank86
quote:whoa. A rare moment of perspicuity for you.
Science cannot resolve the question of “personhood.”
quote:then you had to go and type this crap. "genetics" is not the issue being debated. personhood is. and since the baby is a person from the moment of conception, the baby has the right to not be murdered merely for the sake of convenience. moreover, "sapience" is not part of the discussion, no matter how much you want it to be. last, you really aren't even using the term correctly, even after being informed of that multiple times.
The issue under debate is whether mere genetics can or should give rise to legal rights for an organism that is not yet sapient
quote:this is hank-speak for "i am not capable of refuting it so i'll just poopoo it." prove that it's a red herring
That entire line of discussion is a stinky, days-old, red-herring
i realize this will probably escape you but, it's a slippery slope. if you can take away the right to life for an unborn baby, what's morally stopping you from doing it to anyone who doesn't have "sapience?" the answer is nothing. and you've admitted that "sapience" is basically inscrutable anyway which makes it even more problematic as a criterion for abortion
Posted on 7/22/19 at 9:48 am to L.A.
Why can't we abort brain dead freakers like Schiff and Nadler? No signs of intelligent life there.
Posted on 7/22/19 at 10:10 am to bfniii
Ultimately there isn't a pro-abortion argument that cannot be applied to other groups of humans post-birth. All arguments wind up being completely arbitrary and would have devastating repercussions if applied outside the womb.
Posted on 7/22/19 at 2:30 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:i don't have to have lived your life to know your statement was crazy. i explained why it was.
Until you lived my life
quote:first, not everyone would go through the foster system. many could be adopted. second, there are examples of people who turned out ok despite having gone through the foster system. you can't say that NO good ever results from it. third, you said you wish you had been aborted. you wouldn't even be around to tell anyone of your experience if you had been which shows how crazy your statement is.
I would never want to live through it again or subject anyone too it.
quote:it most certainly is. you are murdering a person for the sake of convenience. i'm sorry you don't understand that.
Also abortion isnt murder,
quote:it's not her body. the baby has a right to not be murdered
Doesn't mean we can tell a women what see can do with her body
quote:it's also a living, distinct human being. a woman does not have the right to murder a human being for the sake of convenience EVER even if the baby is in her body.
yes a fetus is apart of her body
quote:and if it were possible that babies could be in utero outside of a woman's uterus, that would totally destroy your qualification
until it can live outside the womb.
quote:legal does not equal morally right
it's perfectly legal
This post was edited on 7/22/19 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 7/22/19 at 2:31 pm to L.A.
It puts the onus on the chooser to have to live with that choice.
That's all I've got.
That's all I've got.
Posted on 7/22/19 at 2:36 pm to FooManChoo
quote:good luck getting hank to engage with this. he'll probably add you to the ignore list. he does that when he can't respond to challenges to his "analysis."
Ultimately there isn't a pro-abortion argument that cannot be applied to other groups of humans post-birth.
quote:yeah, he called this a red herring. i guess he doesn't understand the concept of the logical outworking of a position
would have devastating repercussions if applied outside the womb.
Posted on 7/22/19 at 2:54 pm to bfniii
I am not lost and my point is not stupid, just because you don't agree.
It should be the Mother's (and Father's) decision whether or not they want to bring a child into this world – NOT the Government's.
Not all "premmies" survive. Some do and some don't. Just like some pregnancies end in miscarriage. Until the umbilical cord is cut, it is part of the woman's body.
Sure the genetic makeup of the fetus is different, but until it is born and removed from the mother's body, it is NOT a PERSON.
It should be the Mother's (and Father's) decision whether or not they want to bring a child into this world – NOT the Government's.
Not all "premmies" survive. Some do and some don't. Just like some pregnancies end in miscarriage. Until the umbilical cord is cut, it is part of the woman's body.
Sure the genetic makeup of the fetus is different, but until it is born and removed from the mother's body, it is NOT a PERSON.
Posted on 7/22/19 at 3:35 pm to TigerBlazer
quote:I explained it in detail. I'm sorry you don't understand
my point is not stupid
quote:it is, up to the moment of conception. After that, the baby person has a right to live. The parents don't have the right to unilaterally murder the baby merely because the baby is an inconvenience. This shouldn't even have to be said
It should be the Mother's (and Father's) decision whether or not they want to bring a child into this world
quote:who's talking about the government? We're talking about what's morally right
NOT the Government's.
quote:so you admit that some do which invalidates the point about living outside the womb
Not all "premmies" survive
quote:I directed you to a resource that explains why this point is invalid. Just because the person is dependent on the mother does not mean that it is not a distinct human being
Until the umbilical cord is cut, it is part of the woman's body
quote:you admit that it's a distinct person but then say that is not a person.
until it is born and removed from the mother's body, it is NOT a PERSON.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News