- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: When did Republicans stop caring about bodily autonomy?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:31 am to BamaAtl
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:31 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Which is why I said taxes are part of the social contract.
ok if we're getting this wacky
aborting babies violates the social contract, like any other crime against another person
ok. thread over. i win
2
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:32 am to genro
quote:
Whether it's right or wrong to kill a baby depends on what technology is available.
Whether it's a viable human that requires the consent of the mother to live (because it's a part of her body) or not depends on what technology is available.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's what your definition of it means, though
It really isn't.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:32 am to BamaAtl
quote:
an individual's medical decisions.
ahh, the idiotic variant of the daily troll. not even worth responding.
which individual are you talking about? The one that's completely defenseless or the one with free will and the ability--should she wish--to control herself and use prophylactics?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:32 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Because you can't force one human to give up fundamental rights to bodily autonomy to sustain another.
take it up with God
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:33 am to BamaAtl
quote:
The party of small government now wants the government to interfere in an individual's medical decisions.
You’re acting as if a viable fetus is a disease to get rid of and the government is denying the right to antibiotics.
No matter how much you try to dehumanize the unborn children, they are still human lives.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:33 am to oogabooga68
quote:
Name a form of birth control more effective than abstinence....
Even abstinence isn't 100% effective (see: Mary, the Virgin)
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:33 am to BamaAtl
quote:
An IUD costs about $16/mo over 5 years. And if a woman can't afford that?
Then she shouldn’t have sex because she obviously cannot provide/afford the possible repercussions of the act of sex
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:33 am to VoxDawg
quote:
Because what's deemed "convenient" for the mother is inconvenient AF for the person being aborted
Why do the fetus's rights supersede the mother's?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:33 am to BamaAtl
quote:
requires the consent of the mother to live
if we were to leave my 6 month old alone in the house for a few days, with my consent and my wife's consent, do you think he'd be alive when we returned?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:34 am to BamaAtl
quote:Are we talking about breastfeeding mothers? Formula is far more expensive and difficult to obtain that contraception. That baby cannot survive without its mother
Whether it's a viable human that requires the consent of the mother to live (because it's a part of her body) or not depends on what technology is available.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:34 am to BamaAtl
quote:
When did Republicans stop caring about bodily autonomy?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
just like how you're trying to argue that it's not a person, at least at a certain part during gestation
I've been very clear in what my definition for that is. I know it's not your definition, but it shouldn't be confusing you like it is.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:34 am to BamaAtl
quote:
When did Republicans stop caring about bodily autonomy?
Never
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:34 am to BamaAtl
quote:Like you, a tremendously weak argument. Please for the love of God, provide something of actual substance. Are you too obtuse to do that?
Because you can't force one human to give up fundamental rights to bodily autonomy to sustain another. You can't force someone to give up a kidney to another person so that the latter will live.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:34 am to BamaAtl
When “thou shalt not commit murder” began to make sense.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:35 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Are they 100% effective?
No but abstinence is. But apparently it’s ineffective
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:35 am to goatmilker
quote:
Don't be stupid.
This is about two bodies not one.
If the mother of a 6-week old fetus were to cease to exist tomorrow, how many living humans would there be in a month?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:35 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Even abstinence isn't 100% effective (see: Mary, the Virgin)
Funny you bring that up considering your ilk doesn't believe in God but I digress...
This post was edited on 5/16/19 at 11:36 am
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:35 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Why do the fetus's rights supersede the mother's?
you're comparing one person's right to live v. the other's "right" to kill (and even taking it down a notch, "right" to privacy, which doesn't actually exist, and right to do whatever short of killing another).
Even using the reductionist harm principle, your analysis is woefully pathetically flawed to the point of not deserving a response. I'm out.
Page 20 of 52
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News