- 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 11:47 am to BamaAtl
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:47 am to BamaAtl
Just to restate
BamaAtl says
Answered
BamaAtl says
quote:
You want to answer the question?
Can the state force you to provide a kidney to transplant to an individual who is dying, provided you'll both live?
Answered
quote:
How is it you don't realize you're actually making OUR point?
Forget the state. Should YOU be able to kill me for my kidney so that you may live?
Then why can you just KILL a baby so that you may not be inconvenienced?
The state would not let you kill me for my kidney and, the argument here is, the state also shouldn't let you kill a baby so that you don't get inconvenienced
This post was edited on 5/16/19 at 11:48 am
0
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:47 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Hell, babies aren't viable outside the womb for quite some time on their own..........
we've been down this road earlier in the thread.
Her response is "That's different, because reasons"
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:47 am to BamaAtl
quote:This is not the standard your party supports. You are closer to a modern social conservative than a modern social liberal. You're on the wrong side!
Viability outside the womb.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:48 am to ShortyRob
quote:
If I kill you for your kidneys so that I may live, that's kinda like killing my baby so I won't be inconvenienced.
That's not my analogy at all - rather, the state forcing you to give up a kidney (and both of you live) vs. the state respecting your choice to keep your kidney and the recipient dying.
Why are you in favor of the first scenario, and not the second?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:48 am to ShortyRob
quote:It's a very weak argument and she knows it. It's fun watching her dig herself deeper and deeper into the pit of dumbassery.
Hell, babies aren't viable outside the womb for quite some time on their own..........
This post was edited on 5/16/19 at 11:48 am
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:48 am to VoxDawg
Does it bother anybody else BamaATL is getting paid by taxpayers to post on this site all morning about killing babies?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:48 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The mother isn't being told to do anything in pregnancy.
Sure she is - she's being told to continue the pregnancy regardless of the risk to herself.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:48 am to BamaAtl
No, sex doesn't always end in pregnancy, but it is the one thing that can cause it. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering, yet totally expected. The simple fact that pro-choice Advocates must dehumanize infant life to rationalize ending it, tells you everything you need to know. There's a long, distinguished track history of groups who have successfully argued for dehumanization of the people they seek to eradicate.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:49 am to CptRusty
quote:
we've been down this road earlier in the thread.
Her response is "That's different, because reasons"
That's because bottom line, there is no functional difference 1 week outside the womb versus 2 weeks prior to that point other than location. The entity being killed is exactly the same and there is simply no rationalizing one's way out of it.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:49 am to BamaAtl
Yes let’s take the only time in this history of human kind (allegedly) that a virgin got pregnant and completely throw away abstinence as a birth control method.
So because immaculate conception happens 9.26 x 10^-10% of the time (assuming 108 billion people have ever lived) abstinence is obviously a flawed system
So because immaculate conception happens 9.26 x 10^-10% of the time (assuming 108 billion people have ever lived) abstinence is obviously a flawed system
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:49 am to BamaAtl
We honestly don't care what the woman does with HER body. We do become concerned, though, when the woman wants someone to dismember THE BABY'S body while it is still inside her.
If she wants to go to her MD, OB/GYN, dentist, dermatologist, plastic surgeon or whatever, no one - NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY - is going to stop her or even try.
Your argument is almost as stupid as the whole "cops are hunting down black people" b. s.
If she wants to go to her MD, OB/GYN, dentist, dermatologist, plastic surgeon or whatever, no one - NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY - is going to stop her or even try.
Your argument is almost as stupid as the whole "cops are hunting down black people" b. s.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:49 am to wutangfinancial
quote:She's only a TB tester, that isn't a demanding job.
Does it bother anybody else BamaATL is getting paid by taxpayers to post on this site all morning about killing babies?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:49 am to genro
quote:
Main logic here is 1) baby cannot survive without its mother 2) contraception isn't 100% effective or available
The problem is that you, and many here, assume 'survive' means 'live without any assistance'. That's not what we're talking about.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:50 am to BamaAtl
quote:No, it's not.
It's exactly equivalent.
In one scenario, a person doesn't have to do anything at all in order for two people to live.
In the other scenario, one person has to do something (give an organ) to another person for both to live. If in this scenario the person donating the organ doesn't do anything at all, that person will live while the other person will die. In the first scenario if the first person didn't do anything at all, both that person and the other person would both live.
So no, it's not equivalent.
quote:Not sure what's funny here. I suppose you mean she's giving up her comfort and autonomy among other things, but that's not what I'm talking about. She doesn't have give up or give away anything from her body (like you were trying to make equivalent with a liver) for the child to live.
quote:Yes, because all of our rights stop where another's begins. I have the right to keep and bear arms but I don't have the right to use them to unlawfully kill another person. In this case, the mother can do whatever she wants so long as it doesn't result in killing another person. That's my argument.
At the expense of her own bodily autonomy, saying that its rights supersede hers.
quote:No and we already covered this. A mother isn't actively "doing" anything to keep the baby alive other than keeping herself alive. No one is forcing a mother to keep herself alive and thus keep the baby alive. The "force" isn't even really force, since the state doesn't actively control her body, only provides a form of justice if she breaks the law. It's simply saying that if the mother takes an action that knowingly and willingly leads to the death of another human being, that justice may be served for that life she actively took. That's not at all equivalent to your scenario.
No, it would be equivalent to the state forcing you to give someone a kidney so that they could live, even if you chose not to. Because in your mind their right to live supersedes your right to bodily autonomy.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:50 am to BamaAtl
quote:Always moving the goalposts, how grand
The problem is that you, and many here, assume 'survive' means 'live without any assistance'. That's not what we're talking about.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:50 am to ShortyRob
quote:
That's because bottom line, there is no functional difference 1 week outside the womb versus 2 weeks prior to that point other than location. The entity being killed is exactly the same and there is simply no rationalizing one's way out of it.
obviously, but it's interesting to see the cognitive dissonance at work.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:50 am to BamaAtl
quote:
What about in those cases where she didn't choose to participate in the action, but was forced into it (which the Alabama law does not distinguish between)?
Why have the Dems not put forth a law allowing abortions ONLY under the exceptions you list and outlaw it for convenience?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:50 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Forget the state. Should YOU be able to kill me for my kidney so that you may live?
That's not the question. Can the state force you to provide a kidney to transplant to an individual who is dying, provided you'll both live, and you don't want to give up a kidney?
Can the state violate your bodily autonomy, even though it's in the interest of another's life for you to do so?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:51 am to McLemore
quote:
it ignores the fact that every day parents are required to give up their "bodily autonomy" to sustain another.
Found another one who doesn't know what 'bodily autonomy' means!
Posted on 5/16/19 at 11:51 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
Can the state force you to provide a kidney to transplant to an individual who is dying, provided you'll both live?
No
Why not?
Page 23 of 52
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News