#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
So lets ask a simple question about Rape pregnancy and abortion...
| Add New Argument |
|
1
point
You have all of a sudden back tracked from all your pro life rhetoric for the past weeks. You are repeating the same exact lunacy as Pro abortion people who tell us to stay out of a woman's body. Just the other day you were screaming how there are TWO bodies there, not just the mothers. You were 100% correct! You were not saying we had no right to force them to give birth! What changed? They say the same thing as you. They say no one can force them to have an unwanted baby.
All your pro life talk means nothing when you start making excuses for your particular reasons for an abortion. That little baby is no less human than any other baby. It was not his fault for being born from a rape. 1
point
Translation.... YOU don't care what I think! Just the other day you were thanking me and telling me you had seen the light. Now when the issue comes back to YOU and and possible sins YOU may have committed, I am once again an idiot and what you call a professional Christian. LOL Until you come to grips with your past, putting it ALL in God's hands, and no longer trying to excuse your past choices... then you will never get over the past. You are all over the place! You listen to a good pro life message and you are on fire for Pro life. Then you listen to Pro abortion rhetoric, and resort back to the world's views. If you truly are a Christian, you should be focusing on God's wisdom... not mine and not the Left's. Whatever the issue, ask what God would do. God says he knows us in the womb. He knows what we will grow up be, regardless who our father was. God will forgive us for our sins, mine and yours. Give it to him and allow him to heal. 1
point
1
point
0
points
1
point
The scenario you depict is really quite horrific and one which doesn't bear thinking about. I don't think there is anyone on God's earth, especially a mother, who would glibly discard an infant into a garbage skip. I know the comparison you'd like everyone to draw from your story-line but I feel the realities of unwanted pregnancies are not as simplistic and uniform as you make out. Everyone is a distinct individual and shall have different emotions about their involuntary condition and will probably act, or react with uncharacteristically irrationality. In my opinion the psychical and mental health of the expectant mother should be paramount and take precedence over all other considerations. In a nutshell, I am strongly of the opinion that only the mother-to-be has the right to decide what happens to her body and sanctimonious, virtue signalling busy-bodies, especially males, should have zero input or influence into the final decision. Whilst such draconian laws will give their makers a smug sense of ill deserved self-righteousness it will drive countless pregnant females into the hands of ruthless, back street butcher abortionists who carry out terminations in the most primitive and life threatening manner. Of course the moralizing agony Aunts & Uncles will wash their hands of consequences of their high minded new law.
. 1
point
If you have called yourself pro life, please take it back because you now sound exactly like Left wing pro abortion people. You just totally ignored the right to life of that innocent baby purely out of convenience of the mother. My analogy was EXACTLY the same as what you are supporting. The only difference is that you can not visualize the little baby being dismembered inside the womb. You can visualize a baby being thrown in the dumpster and call it horrific. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE EXCEPT FOR THE PETRI DISH REPLACING THE DUMPSTER. Please watch the movie Unplanned, and learn something about the abortion trade. They are no better then those back alley abortionists. Do you think those who fought to end Slavery and the killing of Black people, were sanctimonious, virtue signalling busy-bodies? I'm sick of listening to judgmental people labeling anyone fighting to save innocent lives as being sanctimonious moralists. You have been brainwashed to not see the truth of what you are supporting. No different then slavery and no different then the holocaust of Jews. Innocent life has inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I asked if your daughter was raped would you force her to give birth even if it was against her wishes? If it was against her wishes what gives you that right? BTW abortion lowers crime rates making it a moral good , you would like lower crime rates wouldn’t you? You may ban me if you wish even though I’ve addressed your question respectfully If it was against her wishes what gives you that right? Try to remember that the pro-life position is against killing people. Even though you don’t see it that way, that’s the way they see it. In that light “what gives you the right” is an absurd question, because it’s the same right that justifies people in stopping killers who wish to kill. It doesn’t matter what their wishes are when the desire is to kill someone. BTW abortion lowers crime rates making it a moral good , you would like lower crime rates wouldn’t you? World Wars do too, that doesn’t make them morally good. If your means are killing people, the ends don’t matter. You could reduce public costs by killing everyone on disability. You want to reduce costs don’t you? Not at that cost. Try to remember that the pro-life position is against killing people. Even though you don’t see it that way, that’s the way they see it. Yes that’s the way they do see it In that light “what gives you the right” is an absurd question, because it’s the same right that justifies people in stopping killers who wish to kill. It doesn’t matter what their wishes are when the desire is to kill someone. Every question to them is absurd no arguments make a dent in their reasoning I’ve used every one to no avail , it’s rather like arguing with theists only slight more frustrating World Wars do too, that doesn’t make them morally good. If your means are killing people, the ends don’t matter. You could reduce public costs by killing everyone on disability. You want to reduce costs don’t you? Not at that cost. That’s remark was said tounge in cheek even though studies support it I wouldn’t suggest it as a reasonable way to lower crime rates Every question to them is absurd no arguments make a dent in their reasoning I’ve used every one to no avail , it’s rather like arguing with theists only slight more frustrating And you have been as theistically unwavering from your position. Look at it like this. Pro-lifers will agree with you that people should have the freedom to choose all manner of important issues pertaining to their life. Pro-choicers would agree that we can’t kill people for convenience. So you have to cut to the root of the disagreement. If you want to convince a pro-lifer, you have to convince them either that the unborn are not people, or that they are people whom it is ok to kill. Conversely, they have to convince you that the unborn are people and deserving of basic rights afforded to people, such as life. Notice that the above model does not rely on being for or against women. That is truly a distraction from the heart of the matter and based in assuming bad faith on the part of pro-lifers. And you have been as theistically unwavering from your position. Theistically ? Regarding the definition that makes no sense. Why do you use that term? Regarding my position assumptions are made by most as in that I cannot be swayed when in fact I was swayed by compelling arguments in the past as I was previously anti abortion in all cases Look at it like this. Pro-lifers will agree with you that people should have the freedom to choose all manner of important issues pertaining to their life. I don’t accept that as what some believe important is actually damaging to society. Pro - choicers would agree that we can’t kill people for convenience Yes , I don’t agree with killing people for convenience So you have to cut to the root of the disagreement. If you want to convince a pro-lifer, you have to convince them either that the unborn are not people, or that they are people whom it is ok to kill. But a fetus is not a baby a newborn or a person this is blatantly obvious , this demonstrates clearly the sort of emotional terminology pro lifers use to make a case along with claiming abortion is murder Conversely, they have to convince you that the unborn are people and deserving of basic rights afforded to people, such as life. They have to convince me of nothing as my opinion matters not as it’s not the point , the woman’s right to choice is what matters to me Notice that the above model does not rely on being for or against women. I know that, I’m for fairness regarding rights , assumed rights have no bearing on the matter That is truly a distraction from the heart of the matter and based in assuming bad faith on the part of pro-lifers. I don’t attempt to distract with my arguments why do you assume that? Regarding my question the other day will you along with American pro lifers be calling for heavy jail sentences for women who murder babies? Theistically ? Regarding the definition that makes no sense. Why do you use that term? I only used t because you said they are more frustrating than theists. Regarding my position assumptions are made by most as in that I cannot be swayed when in fact I was swayed by compelling arguments in the past as I was previously anti abortion in all cases Why were you anti-abortion? Are there any cases wherein you still are? I don’t believe in that as what some believe important is actually damaging to society. I simply meant that most people, including pro-lifers believe in a person having a large degree of choice, though not universally, in matters of their own life. It basic freedom. Yes , I don’t agree with killing people for convenience Right. So my point is that pro-lifers, and pro-choicers would broadly agree on manny matters wherein these terms are used. The disagreement is narrow on abortion and has nothing to do with wanting to kill people, nor to do with robbing people’s freedoms. But a fetus is not a baby a newborn or a person this is blatantly obvious If you Google “Define fetus” the first result is “an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.” Even if you prefer a different definition, the description of a fetus as an unborn baby is not unwarranted. It’s right at the top of a google search. They have to convince me of nothing as my opinion matters not as it’s not the point Your opinion is the point of debate. If it’s your opinion that some people deserve to be bitch slapped, it doesn’t matter that the law doesn’t support it or that people don’t have that right. Your opinion on bitch slaps is still the point of the debate. I don’t attempt to distract with my arguments why do you assume that? My point was that this is what the debate often degrades into. Pro-choicers aren’t pro-murder and pro-lifers aren’t anti-woman. Regarding my question the other day will you along with American pro lifers be calling for heavy jail sentences for women who murder babies? So far, anti-abortion laws target the doctors who perform them. Laws against murder apply to both men and women and babies can be victims. I am always for heavy penalties for murder, but that’s a somewhat different subject. Why were you anti-abortion? Are there any cases wherein you still are? Because I was formerly a devout Catholic and a product of a society which was dominated by the church and it’s teachings. I’m sure there are cases where I would be against abortion these subjects are never just black and white I simply meant that most people, including pro-lifers believe in a person having a large degree of choice, though not universally, in matters of their own life. It basic freedom. Ok , that’s cleared that up Right. So my point is that pro-lifers, and pro-choicers would broadly agree on manny matters wherein these terms are used. The disagreement is narrow on abortion and has nothing to do with wanting to kill people, nor to do with robbing people’s freedoms. The disagreement has many facets I’ve found in the majority of cases pro lifers will accuse pro choicers of being baby murderers or supporters of such , I’m nearly always accused of this and indeed at the moment on another site this very same pattern is being repeated. If you Google “Define fetus” the first result is “an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.” Even if you prefer a different definition, the description of a fetus as an unborn baby is not unwarranted. It’s right at the top of a google search. Indeed, but one cannot describe a fetus as a “person” or a “baby” as it’s neither it’s a potential “person” or “baby “ in the making Your opinion is the point of debate. If it’s your opinion that some people deserve to be bitch slapped, it doesn’t matter that the law doesn’t support it or that people don’t have that right. Your opinion on bitch slaps is still the point of the debate. It’s not really because whether a woman aborts or not in the majority of cases I care not. My position regarding rights has to do with fairness or what I would deem fair , a woman who’s denied a right in favour of an unborn and an implied right , why should the unborns assumed right trump those of the woman? So far, anti-abortion laws target the doctors who perform them. Laws against murder apply to both men and women and babies can be victims. I am always for heavy penalties for murder, but that’s a somewhat different subject. It makes for a most interesting situation in Alabama if the draconian rulings are ever put into practice , but I’ve read on line it may be only an attempt to overrule and challenge the Roe/ Wade rulings. So a baby murderer to be consistent would have to face the most severe prison sentence as in the doctor , he would have to receive life imprisonment the woman also , as abortion is premeditated , the rapist ( if rape were the cause) as you said would have to receive the smallest sentence. The woman also would have to have any children she may already have put into care while she serves her sentence Because I was formerly a devout Catholic and a product of a society which was dominated by the church and it’s teachings. That doesn’t explain your reasoning. I’m sure there are cases where I would be against abortion these subjects are never just black and white What is one hypothetical example of a case where you would think abortion is the wrong thing to do. The disagreement has many facets I’ve found in the majority of cases pro lifers will accuse pro choicers of being baby murderers or supporters of such Yes. And in many cases, pro-choicers accuse pro-lifers of being anti-woman or anti-freedom. My point is that if you look at the issue from the perspective of the person making the argument, on either side, it is rarely about murder or misogyny/tyranny. Indeed, but one cannot describe a fetus as a “person” or a “baby” as it’s neither it’s a potential “person” or “baby “ in the making Of course one can describe a fetus as a baby, that’s googles top definition. Of course it is possible to define fetus while avoiding the word “baby”, but that doesn’t make “baby in the womb” an unreasonable description in the slightest. Especially in the latter stages when the baby could be in the womb or out of the womb and is essentially no better or worse off regardless. My position regarding rights has to do with fairness or what I would deem fair , a woman who’s denied a right in favour of an unborn and an implied right , why should the unborns assumed right trump those of the woman? My right to swing my arm stops at your face. Why should the well-being of your face trump my right to swing my arms? I’ve read on line it may be only an attempt to overrule and challenge the Roe/ Wade rulings. Yeah, that’s likely the idea. I don’t think it will be successful. However, even if it is, abortion will still be legal in states that want it. That’s how our federal system works. So a baby murderer to be consistent would have to face the most severe prison sentence as in the doctor , he would have to receive life imprisonment the woman also , as abortion is premeditated , the rapist ( if rape were the cause) as you said would have to receive the smallest sentence. None of the law being discussed would punish the woman who has the abortion. In cases of aborting a baby that is the product of rape, the doctor would be punished per the abortion laws, and the rapist would be punished per the rape laws. The woman would not be considered to be committing the crime. Perhaps it is because she has a possible claim to ignorance on the matter, while the doctor does not. That doesn’t explain your reasoning. Sure it does , as a devout Catholic I was following the traditional line of the church my reasoning was Informed by the churches teachings What is one hypothetical example of a case where you would think abortion is the wrong thing to do. Where a woman does it out of spite The disagreement has many facets I’ve found in the majority of cases pro lifers will accuse pro choicers of being baby murderers or supporters of such Yes. And in many cases, pro-choicers accuse pro-lifers of being anti-woman or anti-freedom. My point is that if you look at the issue from the perspective of the person making the argument, on either side, it is rarely about murder or misogyny/tyranny. Fair enough Of course one can describe a fetus as a baby, that’s googles top definition. But the definition of .....baby /ˈbeɪbi/ noun 1. 1. a very young child."his wife's just had a baby" 2 synonyms: 3 infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; bairn; informalsprog, bundle of joy, tiny; literarybabe, babe in arms; technicalneonate "a newborn baby A developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus. A fetus not a newborn, child or tot Of course it is possible to define fetus while avoiding the word “baby”, but that doesn’t make “baby in the womb” an unreasonable description in the slightest. Well it does , potential baby in the making is more accurate Especially in the latter stages when the baby could be in the womb or out of the womb and is essentially no better or worse off regardless. A baby is still a newborn no matter what way you spin it My right to swing my arm stops at your face. Why should the well-being of your face trump my right to swing my arms? You may swing your arms any way you wish , if you deliberately do so at me you’re no longer just swinging your arms you’re assaulting me, you have not a right to assault me I’ve read on line it may be only an attempt to overrule and challenge the Roe/ Wade rulings. Yeah, that’s likely the idea. I don’t think it will be successful. However, even if it is, abortion will still be legal in states that want it. That’s how our federal system works. If a woman has an abortion out of state and she lives in Alabama could she still be charged in Alabama if it came to light she had an abortion in another state? None of the law being discussed would punish the woman who has the abortion. In cases of aborting a baby that is the product of rape, the doctor would be punished per the abortion laws, and the rapist would be punished per the rape laws. The woman would not be considered to be committing the crime. Perhaps it is because she has a possible claim to ignorance on the matter, while the doctor does not. Very confusing indeed for years pro lifers have been branding such women as murderers , one would think to be consistent their particular state law would relish the thought of legally supporting their position Sure it does , as a devout Catholic I was following the traditional line of the church my reasoning was Informed by the churches teachings As a non-Catholic, I have no idea what the traditional line of church reasoning is. When I ask for your reasoning, and you say “It’s the same as Tom’s reasoning”, I still don’t know your reasoning as I don’t know Tom’s. Where a woman does it out of spite Would you be against a woman getting a piercing or a haircut out of spite? If not, why is this different? A fetus not a newborn, child or tot No. Newborns are not in the womb. I get that you want to believe that your chosen definitions are universal and most reasonable, but the fact remains that the top google definitions for a fetus incudes describing it as an unborn baby. There are articles from sources such as WebMD and the UK Independent that talk about how much babies poop in the womb or what it is like for your baby in the womb. Nothing about their language is absurd or inaccurate, outside of these narrow debates, everyone agrees. That means that it is a valid common description. Your wishes to the contrary notwithstanding. If a woman has an abortion out of state and she lives in Alabama could she still be charged in Alabama if it came to light she had an abortion in another state? If a woman has an abortion in the state of Alabama, she will not be charged for it. Very confusing indeed for years pro lifers have been branding such women as murderers , one would think to be consistent their particular state law would relish the thought of legally supporting their position Not really. The pro-life movement has long called abortion murder, but it is less common to call the woman the murderer, that’s just how pro-choicers have portrayed pro-lifers. In fact, the pro-life movement has expanded by welcoming women who have had abortions with open arms, thus increasing their numbers of women who have had abortions speaking out against abortion. This simultaneously softens the view that people have of pro-lifers toward women leading again to an expansion of support. As a non-Catholic, I have no idea what the traditional line of church reasoning is. When I ask for your reasoning, and you say “It’s the same as Tom’s reasoning”, I still don’t know your reasoning as I don’t know Tom’s. I assumed most would realize why the church was against abortion here you go ...... The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."[1] However, the Church does recognize as morally legitimate certain acts which indirectly result in the death of the fetus, as when the direct purpose is removal of a cancerous womb. Canon 1398 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law imposes automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication on Latin Catholics who procure a completed abortion,[2] if they fulfill the conditions for being subject to such a sanction.[3] Eastern Catholics are not subject to automatic excommunication, but by Canon 1450 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches they are to be excommunicated by decree if found guilty of the same action,[4] and they may be absolved of the sin only by the eparchial bishop.[5] In addition to teaching that abortion is immoral, the Catholic Church also makes public statements and takes actions in opposition to its legality. Would you be against a woman getting a piercing or a haircut out of spite? If not why is this different I think a woman who got an abortion to spite a partner may upset the partner somewhat , I see a difference there but I could be wrong maybe the partner would be equally upset at the piercing or haircut just as much. No. Newborns are not in the womb. I get that you want to believe that your chosen definitions are universal and most reasonable, I never claimed they were “universal” that’s your charge against me based on your opinion , they are reasonable though as you stated in your words .....Of course one can describe a fetus as a baby, that’s googles top definition..... You need to google the definition of baby /ˈbeɪbi/ noun 1. 1. a very young child."his wife's just had a baby" 4 3 infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More So is a fetus now using your rationale an infant , child or tot? .but the fact remains that the top google definitions for a fetus incudes describing it as an unborn baby. There are articles from sources such as WebMD and the UK Independent that talk about how much babies poop in the womb or what it is like for your baby in the womb. Nothing about their language is absurd or inaccurate, outside of these narrow debates, everyone agrees. That means that it is a valid common description. Your wishes to the contrary notwithstanding. If you wish to describe a fetus as a baby be my guest but you’re Incorrect If a woman has an abortion in the state of Alabama, she will not be charged for it. Oh ok , I was unsure of the laws Alabama , why the snarky reply? Not really. The pro-life movement has long called abortion murder, but it is less common to call the woman the murderer, that’s just how pro-choicers have portrayed pro-lifers. In fact, the pro-life movement has expanded by welcoming women who have had abortions with open arms, thus increasing their numbers of women who have had abortions speaking out against abortion. This simultaneously softens the view that people have of pro-lifers toward women leading again to an expansion of support. I don’t think that’s accurate at all if what I read regarding Texas is true would the opinion of resident pro lifers in Texas just be an isolated opinion in the U S ? ....The latest abortion debate out of Texas gives a clear answer: the goal is to hurt women, not defend life. The Texas state legislature is debating a provision that wouldn’t just outlaw abortion, but legally qualify it as homicide. For context of how extreme that is, even in the United States before Roe v Wade made abortion broadly legal, the procedure was outlawed in most states but was not considered murder – abortion was its own crime. Texas in 2019 wants to be even more barbaric than that, and turn women who end their pregnancies into felons, killers, and even death row inmates. The Guardian Thank you for the clarification of Catholic dogma on the matter. Now I know what your position was, though not necessarily your reasoning. For example, do you hold that human life must be respected and protected absolutely, but only after birth? If so, why? Why not at any point before? Also, it seems that the Catholic position that every living being has an inviolable right to life is untenable, if we are ever to eat anything. But that’s a different matter. I think a woman who got an abortion to spite a partner may upset the partner somewhat , I see a difference there but I could be wrong maybe the partner would be equally upset at the piercing or haircut just as much. So, would it be different for a woman to get a piercing out of spite? So is a fetus now using your rationale an infant , child or tot? No, it’s a baby in the womb. A baby is a very young child according to your definition, with the example that “his wife just had a baby”. She didn’t have a fetus, she gave birth to a baby. That very young child that she gave birth to is no longer in the womb. If you wish to describe a fetus as a baby be my guest but you’re Incorrect Lol no I’m not. “Baby in the womb” is a phrase completely without contention when no one is discussing abortion. That’s why it’s in WebMD and other uncontroversial places. Only when abortion is the topic at hand does the cognitive dissonance associated with calling it a baby require pro-choicers to bristle at the word “baby”. Oh ok , I was unsure of the laws Alabama , why the snarky reply? It wasn’t meant as snark. It was meant to illustrate that the woman won’t even be charged if she is in the state. I don’t think that’s accurate at all if what I read regarding Texas is true would the opinion of resident pro lifers in Texas just be an isolated opinion in the U S ? The Bill in question failed in no small part due to Pro-Life opposition. Republican Jeff Leach ardently identifies as pro-life, but said “My commitment to advancing the pro-life cause is stronger than ever…and that’s why I cannot in good conscience support House Bill 896.” Thank you for the clarification of Catholic dogma on the matter. Now I know what your position was, though not necessarily your reasoning. Reasoning doesn’t come into it , in my day from infancy onwards we were force fed Catholic teachings which were reinforced by church , state or school this is classic indoctrination. For example, do you hold that human life must be respected and protected absolutely, but only after birth? If so, why? Why not at any point before? A fetus can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother's body, unlike born human beings, even if a fetus was alive, the "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use somebody else's body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else's life. The "right to life" also doesn't imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well? To ban abortion denies freedom of choice to women and forces 'the unwilling to bear the unwanted'. Contraception is designed to reduce the incidence of abortion why are you comfortable with one and not the other? Also If fetuses have a right to live why don’t ova have a right to be impregnated? Also, it seems that the Catholic position that every living being has an inviolable right to life is untenable, if we are ever to eat anything. But that’s a different matter. The Catholic Church position on a lot of things is untenable So, would it be different for a woman to get a piercing out of spite? Yes , I think the difference between the two is telling on the one who is the victim of spite. No, it’s a baby in the womb. A baby is a very young child according to your definition, Pretty neat bit of word play there between “baby in the womb “ and “baby “ that’s where your confusion lies as a child is .....a young human being below the age of puberty. So are you insisting a fetus is a young child? with the example that “his wife just had a baby”. She didn’t have a fetus, she gave birth to a baby. That very young child that she gave birth to is no longer in the womb. Your example is not valid as I’ve just demonstrated Lol no I’m not. “Baby in the womb” is a phrase completely without contention when no one is discussing abortion. That’s why it’s in WebMD and other uncontroversial places. Only when abortion is the topic at hand does the cognitive dissonance associated with calling it a baby require pro-choicers to bristle at the word “baby”. Lol yes you are. You’re comparing a “baby in the womb “to a “baby” saying something is “without contention “ is demonstrably false as a baby is defined as a young child. The term embryo is used from conception to the eight week after that until the moment of birth the term is fetus , which clearly demonstrates pro lifers are the actual ones suffering from cognitive dissonance as they continue to use over the top teary eyed emotional terminology to tug at the heartstrings The Bill in question failed in no small part due to Pro-Life opposition. Republican Jeff Leach ardently identifies as pro-life, but said “My commitment to advancing the pro-life cause is stronger than ever…and that’s why I cannot in good conscience support House Bill 896.” The U S and it’s population are it seems mostly religious and informed by the opinions of those who hold similar views I read this piece recently regarding abortion in the U S ....... For those who want abortion to be illegal, the desire is often based on equating the procedure to murder. Protesters outside Planned Parenthood clinics wave signs declaring that “abortion is murder” and “babies are murdered here.” The American Enterprise Institute found in 2017 that when Americans are polled on whether abortion is murder, the majority say yes. You recently stated that to be legally consistent a rapist should get a lighter sentence than a woman who has an abortion it seems you no longer hold this opinion why’s that? A fetus can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother's body, unlike born human beings Born babies are still fully dependent on their parents, that’s why we have laws enforcing parental responsibility. Parents are not free to do what they want, by law, specifically because babies are dependent. Are you against such laws? To ban abortion denies freedom of choice to women and forces 'the unwilling to bear the unwanted'. See parental responsibility laws. They do the same. Contraception is designed to reduce the incidence of abortion why are you comfortable with one and not the other? If I am against abortion, it makes sense to be in favor of alternatives which prevent the necessity for abortion. Also If fetuses have a right to live why don’t ova have a right to be impregnated? An ovum is a human cell, not a human life. A fetus is a full organism with distinct human DNA. It becomes a fetus around 11 weeks by the way. Yes , I think the difference between the two is telling on the one who is the victim of spite. What I meant was do you feel the two are different. You were against a woman getting an abortion out of spite. Are you similarly against a woman doing any other given thing with her body (ie piercings) out of spite? So are you insisting a fetus is a young child? Well yeah. The difference between a kid the day before birth and the day after is merely how they get their food and oxygen. The earliest surviving premature birth was 21 weeks. The child in the incubator was still a child. A very young one. Your example is not valid as I’ve just demonstrated You didn’t demonstrate invalidity; you asked a question. To which I gave a further clarifying valid answer. You’re comparing a “baby in the womb “to a “baby” saying something is “without contention “ is demonstrably false as a baby is defined as a young child. Yes, a baby is a young child and a fetus is a baby in the womb. Medical and news sources commonly refer to the fetus as the baby in the womb unless there is an abortion discussion at hand. The term embryo is used from conception to the eight week after that until the moment of birth the term is fetus , which clearly demonstrates pro lifers are the actual ones suffering from cognitive dissonance How does stages of gestation stages prove pro-life cognitive dissonance? If you think that acknowledging that a fetus is a baby is designed to tug heartstrings, that’s arguably an appeal to emotion, but it is only effective because of pro-choice cognitive dissonance. The U S and it’s population are it seems mostly religious and informed by the opinions of those who hold similar views You’ll notice that nothing in my position refers to or relies on any religious text or opinion. Pro-choicers always wish it did, as that would be easier to attack, but it doesn’t. You recently stated that to be legally consistent a rapist should get a lighter sentence than a woman who has an abortion it seems you no longer hold this opinion why’s that? I never once said that a woman who gets an abortion would or should be punished at all, let alone worse than a rapist. If I had said that, I would have gotten some kind of push-back. I said that if an abortion is to be considered homicide, it is logical that the abortion practitioner be punished worse than a rapist, since intentional homicide is typically a more serious crime than rape. Born babies are still fully dependent on their parents, that’s why we have laws enforcing parental responsibility. But I’m not talking about born babies, I’m talking about the unborn. If born they have already been granted life by the woman’s permission Parents are not free to do what they want, by law, specifically because babies are dependent. Are you against such laws? But I’m still not not talking about born babies See parental responsibility laws. They do the same. The two are totally unrelated If I am against abortion, it makes sense to be in favor of alternatives which prevent the necessity for abortion. Contraception prevents a potential life coming into being why prevent this happening? An ovum is a human cell, not a human life. But it has potential to be an organism if fertilized why deny its potential? A fetus is a full organism with distinct human DNA. It becomes a fetus around 11 weeks by the way. Yes I know and remains a fetus till born What I meant was do you feel the two are different. You were against a woman getting an abortion out of spite. Are you similarly against a woman doing any other given thing with her body (ie piercings) out of spite? There may be other things a woman could do with her body out of spite I would find objectionable Well yeah. The difference between a kid the day before birth and the day after is merely how they get their food and oxygen. The earliest surviving premature birth was 21 weeks. The child in the incubator was still a child. A very young one. It’s not it’s just that one resides within the woman the other does not , I think you need to look up the definition of child I’m afraid it’s does not include an unborn The use of the term "baby" to describe the unborn human organism is part of an effort to assign the organism agency. This assignation of agency functions to further the construction of fetal personhood. You didn’t demonstrate invalidity; you asked a question. To which I gave a further clarifying valid answer. I demonstrated you were misusing terms in an attempt to force your point , the term child is incorrect when describing the unborn the definition of baby and child does not state anywhere the unborn Yes, a baby is a young child and a fetus is a baby in the womb. Medical and news sources commonly refer to the fetus as the baby in the womb unless there is an abortion discussion at hand. A developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus. How does stages of gestation stages prove pro-life cognitive dissonance? If you think that acknowledging that a fetus is a baby is designed to tug heartstrings, that’s arguably an appeal to emotion, but it is only effective because of pro-choice cognitive dissonance. By describing a fetus as a baby is a clear example of cognitive dissonance as to deem a fetus a baby is inconsistent with the actual reality of the situation, there is no cognitive dissonance regards my position as what’s medically factual will verify You’ll notice that nothing in my position refers to or relies on any religious text or opinion. Pro-choicers always wish it did, as that would be easier to attack, but it doesn’t. Correct but you did state .....The pro-life movement has long called abortion murder, but it is less common to call the woman the murderer, that’s just how pro-choicers have portrayed pro-lifers. That’s what I referenced and I think in fact a fair proportion religious pro -life supporters in the U S would deem the woman a murderer , that is unless a radical change has come over Christian thinking in the U S. I never once said that a woman who gets an abortion would or should be punished at all, let alone worse than a rapist. If I had said that, I would have gotten some kind of push-back. Ok , thanks for clarifying. But why no punishment for the woman if she’s paying someone to carry out an abortion on her she has technically paid for the murder of her baby, this is a paid hit But I’m not talking about born babies, I’m talking about the unborn. I know, but this is another instance where what you apply to the unborn also applies to the born. Babies are dependent on their parents. We have laws that enforce that parental responsibility and limit a person’s freedom and ability to do what they want with their body. Those laws would be unjust according to your reasoning. But I’m still not not talking about born babies But you’re reasoning still applies. Babies are entirely dependent both before and after they are born. The location of the baby does not make their dependence in one situation unrelated to their dependence in another. The fact is that they are dependent either way. If that’s good enough reason to dispose of them in one situation, then it’s good enough reason to dispose of them in another. To deny this is to fail to rectify the cognitive dissonance arising from your dependence argument. Contraception prevents a potential life coming into being why prevent this happening? Every time I don’t have sex I am preventing potential life from coming into being. That is altogether different from extinguishing a life that already exists. Destruction and potential are very different concepts. But it has potential to be an organism if fertilized why deny its potential? If fertilized is the big difference here. You deciding not to come to the US is very different from being deported upon arrival. You get that right? There may be other things a woman could do with her body out of spite I would find objectionable Do you find an abortion out of spite to be equally objectionable to a nose ring out of spite? It’s not it’s just that one resides within the woman the other does not There’s a little more to it, but not as far as the baby is concerned. Look, you can give up on the definition debate. No one gets excited about a doctor referring to a baby in the womb unless it’s an abortion debate. No one thinks the doctor fails to understand what a child is or that the unborn baby is a very young unborn child. It’s only ever an issue in these kinds of debates. So you can carry on with your notion that babies in the womb aren’t babies, but you’re wrong. If demonstrated this now several times. Everyone actually knows this except when we get to these debates. Then the definition has to adjust to suit your cognitive dissonance. If you keep repeating lines from a misguided vocabulary, it will be ignored. You can continue to discuss what sets the born apart from the unborn to justify acts against one versus acts against the other, as that is a valid argument. But simply adjusting what you call a thing is not sufficient. A developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus. Haha. I’m surprised you chose to quote the Cleveland Clinic here since they are calling it a baby. Also, the difference is developmental as well. The embryo is developing the different parts of the baby’s body. The fetus is a complete organism that is growing. By describing a fetus as a baby is a clear example of cognitive dissonance as to deem a fetus a baby is inconsistent with the actual reality of the situation, there is no cognitive dissonance regards my position as what’s medically factual will verify Your very own quote from the Cleveland Clinic refers to a fetus as a baby. Cognitive dissonance is a personal, internal issue. It’s where you hold one thing to be true which conflicts with other things you hold to be true. My reference to fetuses as unborn babies is perfectly consistent with references from many others that I agree with, including doctors and your own source, Cleveland Clinic. This position is perfectly consistent with my position that you generally should not kill babies as well as my pro-life position that you generally should not kill fetuses. If you believe that you should not kill babies, then to be pro-choice means you have to deny that fetuses are unborn babies, even in the face of undeniable evidence (such as your own reference) and reasoning, lest you face cognitive dissonance. That’s what I referenced and I think in fact a fair proportion religious pro -life supporters in the U S would deem the woman a murderer , that is unless a radical change has come over Christian thinking in the U S. You did see where the Texas bill failed because of a pro-lifer, right? Ok , thanks for clarifying. But why no punishment for the woman if she’s paying someone to carry out an abortion on her she has technically paid for the murder of her baby, this is a paid hit Great question. It can be presumed that a woman getting an abortion lacks “mens era”, which is Latin for “guilty mind” and basically means “intent”. Many people do not believe that fetuses are babies. They do not believe that an abortion is the willful taking of a human life. It is reasonable to assume a woman who gets an abortion is in this category, thus her action would be done out of ignorance. The doctor, on the other hand, cannot claim such ignorance as they are intimately involved in the abortion process. It’s also strategic, since a law that doesn’t punish women is more likely to pass. Pro-lifers are concerned with stopping or reducing abortions more than they are worried about who is punished. This lack of mens rea is why one of the pro-life efforts is education. Some states have tried to pass laws requiring abortion doctors to explain the procedure in detail with images, as other doctors sometimes do with other medical procedures. If it’s truly no more than a cluster of cells, then this is no more controversial than illustrating an appendicitis. The idea is that an informed mother will choose life. But pro-choicers fight hard against these efforts, which implies they do not believe an informed mother would view it the same as an appendicitis. I know, but this is another instance where what you apply to the unborn also applies to the born. It doesn’t as you’re assigning agency to the unborn to further the idea of fetal personhood Babies are dependent on their parents. We have laws that enforce that parental responsibility and limit a person’s freedom and ability to do what they want with their body. Yes indeed but pro - lifers think it perfectly reasonable to deny a woman a right no matter what your moral beliefs are, they do not take precedence over other people's rights. And abortion is a right In your country this right has been challenged and rejected by every judge of colour and creed it’s come before If the 14th amendment remains so it will remain a right Those laws would be unjust according to your reasoning. No they wouldn’t my reasoning is sound But you’re reasoning still applies. Babies are entirely dependent both before and after they are born. So what if they’re dependent before they’re born The location of the baby does not make their dependence in one situation unrelated to their dependence in another. The fact is that they are dependent either way. If that’s good enough reason to dispose of them in one situation, then it’s good enough reason to dispose of them in another. To accept that scenario one would have to imagine a situation where a woman decides to have a baby and then decides she wants to end its life after having it , it’s always the way in these debates where truly absurd scenarios are thought up to make a “ killer argument” To deny this is to fail to rectify the cognitive dissonance arising from your dependence argument. I’ve defended my position I find the cognitive dissonance to be entirely with you I’m afraid Every time I don’t have sex I am preventing potential life from coming into being. That is altogether different from extinguishing a life that already exists. Destruction and potential are very different concepts. Yes destruction and potential are different but why stop potential? If fertilized is the big difference here. You deciding not to come to the US is very different from being deported upon arrival. You get that right? I do get that thanks for asking though. How can you hold women morally responsible for unintended consequences if they took deliberate measures to prevent them? Do you find an abortion out of spite to be equally objectionable to a nose ring out of spite? No I don’t There’s a little more to it, but not as far as the baby is concerned. Look, you can give up on the definition debate I never wanted a definition debate but you insisted with your opening salvo which I set out my position regarding accepted terminology .....If you want to convince a pro-lifer, you have to convince them either that the unborn are not people, or that they are people whom it is ok to kill No one gets excited about a doctor referring to a baby in the womb unless it’s an abortion debate. No one thinks the doctor fails to understand what a child is or that the unborn baby is a very young unborn child. It’s only ever an issue in these kinds of debates. So you can carry on with your notion that babies in the womb aren’t babies, but you’re wrong. I’m not but maybe scientists are wrong also? A developing baby is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of pregnancy. ... After the eighth week of pregnancy and until birth occurs, a developing baby is called a fetus.Aug 29, 2017 https://www.livescience.com › 44899-sta... Having a Baby: Stages of Pregnancy - Live Science You will persist in this terminology argument If demonstrated this now several times. Everyone actually knows this except when we get to these debates. Then the definition has to adjust to suit your cognitive dissonance. If you keep repeating lines from a misguided vocabulary, it will be ignored. You’ve demonstrated nothing except the lofty opinion that science is wrong and your right because you say so , you redefine terms like child to actually mean fetus thus your continued cognitive dissonance */You can continue to discuss what sets the born apart from the unborn to justify acts against one versus acts against the other, as that is a valid argument. But simply adjusting what you call a thing is not sufficient. But I’m calling a thing what it actually is as opposed to your reinterpretation of terminology Haha. I’m surprised you chose to quote the Cleveland Clinic here since they are calling it a baby. Haha yeah first source that came to hand , maybe they should have then stated , your developing fetus is called a fetus ......doesn’t work does it? Also, the difference is developmental as well. The embryo is developing the different parts of the baby’s body. The fetus is a complete organism that is growing. You still persist yet you keep asking me to give up the definition debate Your very own quote from the Cleveland Clinic refers to a fetus as a baby. I’ve changed there wording for you , you know exactly what the original was stating Cognitive dissonance is a personal, internal issue. It’s where you hold one thing to be true which conflicts with other things you hold to be true. My reference to fetuses as unborn babies is perfectly consistent with references from many others that I agree with, including doctors and your own source, Cleveland Clinic. This position is perfectly consistent with my position that you generally should not kill babies as well as my pro-life position that you generally should not kill fetuses. If you believe that you should not kill babies, then to be pro-choice means you have to deny that fetuses are unborn babies, even in the face of undeniable evidence (such as your own reference) and reasoning, lest you face cognitive dissonance.
I’m afraid the cognitive dissonance is still with you a fetus is a fetus until born you don’t like scientific facts so you resort to assigning a fetus agency to further the idea of fetal personhood You did see where the Texas bill failed because of a pro-lifer, right? I did , my point is broader than that Great question. It can be presumed that a woman getting an abortion lacks “mens era”, which is Latin for “guilty mind” and basically means “intent”. Many people do not believe that fetuses are babies. They do not believe that an abortion is the willful taking of a human life. It is reasonable to assume a woman who gets an abortion is in this category, thus her action would be done out of ignorance. That’s a pretty ingenious way of looking at it and handling it. The doctor, on the other hand, cannot claim such ignorance as they are intimately involved in the abortion process. It’s also strategic, since a law that doesn’t punish women is more likely to pass. Pro-lifers are concerned with stopping or reducing abortions more than they are worried about who is punished. This lack of mens rea is why one of the pro-life efforts is education. Some states have tried to pass laws requiring abortion doctors to explain the procedure in detail with images, as other doctors sometimes do with other medical procedures. If it’s truly no more than a cluster of cells, then this is no more controversial than illustrating an appendicitis. The idea is that an informed mother will choose life. But pro-choicers fight hard against these efforts, which implies they do not believe an informed mother would view it the same as an appendicitis. That’s very illuminating indeed thanks for the information. I don’t think there is much more I can add to this topic as it seems to be descending into a battle of terminology, you may have the last words if you wish It doesn’t as you’re assigning agency to the unborn to further the idea of fetal personhood I haven’t applied agency to any babies, born or unborn. Yes indeed but pro - lifers think it perfectly reasonable to deny a woman a right no matter what your moral beliefs are, they do not take precedence over other people's rights. And abortion is a right In your country this right has been challenged and rejected by every judge of colour and creed it’s come before If the 14th amendment remains so it will remain a right Court’s have previously ruled against the personhood of some peoples in favor of the illegitimate so-called rights of others. It was a long standing error that was eventually corrected. People don’t have the right to kill other people for convenience. Being against killing babies means being against a persons supposed right to kill a baby. The 14th provides for equal protection of the laws, meaning it should extend to protect all people against willful killing, though it is not interpreted this way. The authority of the court decides the matter in practice, but not in morality, which is what we are discussing. In other words, the courts have the authority of legal practice, but they are not a moral authority. No they wouldn’t my reasoning is sound Regardless of its soundness, if your reasoning is applied consistently, parental responsibility laws are problematic. They force a persons actions on behalf of another person who is dependent on them. So what if they’re dependent before they’re born Babies are dependent both before and after their born. To accept that scenario one would have to imagine a situation where a woman decides to have a baby and then decides she wants to end its life after having it , it’s always the way in these debates where truly absurd scenarios are thought up to make a “ killer argument” Neonaticide and infanticide are not absurd scenarios. It’s a readily available scenario for me to imagine because it happened locally, near my house. Your reasoning for abortion applies equally to the local murderer who did away with her very young child, and that’s absurd. The scenario itself is not. Yes destruction and potential are different but why stop potential? Potential is infinite. To proceed with any given actuality is to erase an infinite number of potentials. No matter the context. Destroying an actuality is not at all the same as stopping a potential. How can you hold women morally responsible for unintended consequences if they took deliberate measures to prevent them? How can you ask accusatory questions unrelated to anything I’ve said? I never said anything about mother’s being morally responsible for pregnancy. Mostly I referred to abortion doctors as morally responsible for abortions. I asked if you find an abortion out of spite to be equally objectionable to a nose ring out of spite. You said No I don’t. Why not? What’s the difference? It’s her body and her choice. Right? I never wanted a definition debate but you insisted You really make my point when your argument against me starts with scientists saying A developing baby is called an embryo. A developing WHAT?! Oh a baby. Now don’t start pretending that babies stop developing when they exit the womb, ok? You will persist in this terminology argument Yeah. Especially when your own quoted scientific terminology agrees with mine. In fact, everyone agrees so long as we aren’t discussing abortion. You’ve demonstrated nothing except the lofty opinion that science is wrong See your own quote directly above. My claim is very pro-science. My lofty opinion is scientifically and semantically supported. But I’m calling a thing what it actually is Yeah, sometimes. Except when you quote scientists that call embryos developing babies. Then you call them something else. It’s the second time in the last two post. First Cleveland and now whomever you’re quoting. You gotta look harder to confirm your bias. I don’t. I’ve changed there wording for you I was able to find the quote by googling exactly what you posted. You didn’t change what they said. You copy and pasted it. It’s too bad for your dissonance that you failed to recognize them calling it a baby. It’s a pretty universal use of the term. Which is why that part of the discussion is no longer up for debate. I’m afraid the cognitive dissonance is still with you a fetus is a fetus until born you don’t like scientific facts so you resort to assigning a fetus agency to further the idea of fetal personhood Yours is a game of semantics, which you’ve failed at. Mine is one of science, and happens to be supported by science and semantics. I’m not assigning agency to babies. I don’t know where you got this idea, but it’s got nothing to do with my position. I don’t think there is much more I can add to this topic as it seems to be descending into a battle of terminology, you may have the last words if you wish Indeed. As my last few bits in this post have demonstrated, we are at an impasse concerning terminology. While terminology may seem petty, it seems to make a substantial difference to you concerning ending a life just prior to, as opposed to just after birth. When the matter is a human life, I can’t take subtle definitional differences of location that seriously. Toward the end of your post you seem to be receptive to, while disagreeing with, parts of my position. I’m not articulating the Catholic position. Mine is not religious at all. I don’t expect you to be convinced by me, but at least know that there are a variety of reasons and means which compose your opposition on the topic. It may be that some pro-lifer believes much the same way as you, but has arrived at a different conclusion. In such cases, check your premises, and the connections between them. I haven’t applied agency to any babies, born or unborn. You certainly have as your continued use of the term baby applied to the fetus confirms A fetus is a fetus until born you don’t like scientific facts so you resort to assigning a fetus agency to further the idea of fetal personhood Court’s have previously ruled against the personhood of some peoples in favor of the illegitimate so-called rights of others. It was a long standing error that was eventually corrected. People don’t have the right to kill other people for convenience. Being against killing babies means being against a persons supposed right to kill a baby. So the denial of bodily autonomy is disallowed in this case as the fetus and it’s so called implied rights of the fetus must take precedence , maybe forced births should be the best way forward in the U S? The 14th provides for equal protection of the laws, meaning it should extend to protect all people against willful killing, though it is not interpreted this way. The authority of the court decides the matter in practice, but not in morality, which is what we are discussing. So all these legal experts and various others who inform the courts and legal thinking have all got it wrong? In other words, the courts have the authority of legal practice, but they are not a moral authority. Why who is the “moral “ authority that should make such rulings? Regardless of its soundness, if your reasoning is applied consistently, parental responsibility laws are problematic. They force a persons actions on behalf of another person who is dependent on them. I don’t get what you’re saying here Neonaticide and infanticide are not absurd scenarios. It’s a readily available scenario for me to imagine because it happened locally, near my house. Your reasoning for abortion applies equally to the local murderer who did away with her very young child, and that’s absurd. The scenario itself is not. They’re rare exceptions and have nothing to do with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy when it come to abortion Potential is infinite. To proceed with any given actuality is to erase an infinite number of potentials. No matter the context. Destroying an actuality is not at all the same as stopping a potential. Well no it’s not an “actuality” until born, it’s a potential actuality, destroying it is the same as stopping an actuality How can you hold women morally responsible for unintended consequences if they took deliberate measures to prevent them? How can you ask accusatory questions unrelated to anything I’ve said? I never said anything about mother’s being morally responsible for pregnancy. Nothing accusatory at all that’s rather melodramatic surely It’s implied , otherwise you would not be in favour of of denying them a right , do you not make a decision based on the morality or immorality of the whole topic? Mostly I referred to abortion doctors as morally responsible for abortions. Right so doctors are morally responsible but the one asking and paying for the abortion is not? Why not? What’s the difference? It’s her body and her choice. Right? My sympathy would be with a guy who lost the chance to be a father out of a spiteful action , if his partner had a piercing out of spite I would not find that objectionable , why that is so difficult for you to get is beyond me You really make my point when your argument against me starts with scientists saying A developing baby is called an embryo. A developing WHAT?! Oh a baby. Now don’t start pretending that babies stop developing when they exit the womb, ok? Yet you totally ignore what I said before on this matter a “developing” is the give away here it makes no sense to say “ a developing embryo is called an .....embryo “ And no I don’t start “pretending “ anything Yeah. Especially when your own quoted scientific terminology agrees with mine. In fact, everyone agrees so long as we aren’t discussing abortion. Yeah. It doesn’t. They don’t Scientists don’t either as I’ve proved with my last link in my last post My claim is very pro-science. My lofty opinion is scientifically and semantically supported. It’s the opposite of pro -science whomever you’re quoting . It’s neither mine is though Yeah, sometimes. Except when you quote scientists that call embryos developing babies. Then you call them something else. It’s the second time in the last two post. First Cleveland and now whomever you’re quoting Incorrect as I keep stating yet you keep ignoring. . You gotta look harder to confirm your bias. I don’t. Kettle /pot. You sure do I was able to find the quote by googling exactly what you posted. You didn’t change what they said. You copy and pasted it. I did change it as I keep doing a few you keep ignoring It’s too bad for your dissonance that you failed to recognize them calling it a baby. It’s too bad for your continued dissonance you have to keep misrepresenting me ..... Yet you totally ignore what I said before on this matter a “developing” is the give away here it makes no sense to say “ a developing embryo is called an .....embryo “ ...... No doubt I will have to repeat this yet again It’s a pretty universal use of the term. Which is why that part of the discussion is no longer up for debate What is the term fetus or is it only used by me it seems Yours is a game of semantics, which you’ve failed at. Actually it’s one I won easily after you introduced it originally Mine is one of science, and happens to be supported by science and semantics. Yet scientists disagree with you interesting , semantically i afraid that’s another loss for you I’m not assigning agency to babies. I don’t know where you got this idea, but it’s got nothing to do with my position. You are and you did While terminology may seem petty, it seems to make a substantial difference to you concerning ending a life just prior to, as opposed to just after birth. I never mentioned a “just prior to “ scenario , why are you making stuff up? When the matter is a human life, I can’t take subtle definitional differences of location that seriously. A human life? How do you define a “human life “? Toward the end of your post you seem to be receptive to, while disagreeing with, parts of my position. I’m not articulating the Catholic position. Mine is not religious at all. I don’t expect you to be convinced by me, but at least know that there are a variety of reasons and means which compose your opposition on the topic. It may be that some pro-lifer believes much the same way as you, but has arrived at a different conclusion. In such cases, check your premises, and the connections between them. I’m happy with my premises and related connections thank you You certainly have as your continued use of the term baby applied to the fetus confirms A fetus is a fetus until born you don’t like scientific facts so you resort to assigning a fetus agency to further the idea of fetal personhood This is getting tedious. I haven’t assigned agency to fetuses. I haven’t assigned agency to born babies. Recognizing that fetuses are babies in the womb, as defined and commonly referred to, does not assign them agency because babies as such do not have agency. This is just a weird misunderstanding that you have applied to my argument and now can’t let go of. So the denial of bodily autonomy is disallowed in this case as the fetus and it’s so called implied rights of the fetus must take precedence New born babies don’t have autonomy. But you don’t get to kill them. Their right to live takes precedence over you desire to be rid of them. maybe forced births should be the best way forward in the U S? What does that even mean? No one is suggesting forcing people to have babies. We have all kinds of birth control. But if you do, you are forced to take care of them. So all these legal experts and various others who inform the courts and legal thinking have all got it wrong? Yes. And all the their legal experts who disagree with all of them got it right. You often fall back on appeals to authority, it demonstrates a lack of confidence in your own ability. Your appeal is fallacious. Especially since courts are NOT the moral authority, just the legal authority. Do you know the difference? Why who is the “moral “ authority that should make such rulings? Judges are legal authorities. They make legal rulings from which we derive legal precedence and parameters. This is a moral question, and it doesn’t matter what the legal ruling is. Reality is the ultimate authority and the only appeal is reason. You have a fondness for the passage through a birth canal as some kind of point of personhood, but this is completely arbitrary. Let me restate your argument with a different arbitrary “kill” line for to demonstrate how unreasonable your position is: A baby is not a toddler until 12 months. They are completely dependent until they are toddlers. Before that they have no agency; no autonomy. Their brains are completely blank. If you demand that a woman take care of her baby simply because of the unintended consequences of getting pregnant, you are putting the rights of a crying little mass of cells ahead of the rights of the mother. You’re a monster. They’re rare exceptions and have nothing to do with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy when it come to abortion There is no right of bodily autonomy that allows you to kill someone. There are lots of things you can’t do because of the presence of someone else. You can’t even smoke meth around your kid in your own home. “But wait, it’s your house!” Yeah but the kid is your responsibility. Well no it’s not an “actuality” until born, it’s a potential actuality, destroying it is the same as stopping an actuality Even your side points are factually incorrect. A fetus actually exists. Not potentially, but actually. A pregnancy that never happened actually does not exist. You’re getting absurd. How can you hold women morally responsible for unintended consequences if they took deliberate measures to prevent them? I’m not holding anyone responsible. I’m discussing facts, not responsibility. It is a fact that we hold parents legally responsible for their children, requiring all kinds of things from them, their rights to bodily autonomy notwithstanding. It is a fact that your reasoning concerning babies in the womb applies equally to babies outside the womb. Right so doctors are morally responsible but the one asking and paying for the abortion is not? They would be, if they weren’t ignorant like you. My sympathy would be with a guy who lost the chance to be a father out of a spiteful action I don’t see how he lost anything at all by your reasoning. It’s her body, and apparently that’s all there is to it. If she insisted on birth control, did the man loose anything? And no I don’t start “pretending “ anything Haha of course you have. You’ve pretended that fetuses aren’t babies in the womb. That’s what is always pretended in these debates, and only in these debates. Your new bit is the word “developing”. As if babies developing in the womb are fundamentally different than babies developing outside the womb. People don’t stop developing derm. Zygote to embryo to fetus to infant to toddler and so on. All of those are humans in a process of developing, both in and out of the womb. It’s not a special word. The matter is settled. Pretty much the whole matter is settled between us. The terminology is on my side. Not your terminology, but terminology in general, which is what matters. The biology is on my side. The logical consistency is on my side. The only thing on your side is cognitive dissonance, a concept you unsuccessfully tried to turn around on me but failed to know quite what it means. After you look that up, look up agency so you can use it in situation where it actually applies. I sometimes forget that you’re the same guy who thinks you can reasonably experience doubt that you are experiencing anything. I’ll let you have the last word, since it will be a little more “nuh uh” on your part, but your dissonance needs it. 2
points
1
point
This is getting tedious But yet you bleat on with your reinvention of terms to suit your narrative I haven’t assigned agency to fetuses. I haven’t assigned agency to born babies. Recognizing that fetuses are babies in the womb, as defined and commonly referred to, does not assign them agency because babies as such do not have agency. This is just a weird misunderstanding that you have applied to my argument and now can’t let go of. Stop it you protest to much , you are assigning a fetus agency to further the idea of fetal personhood .....go on deny it again New born babies don’t have autonomy. But you don’t get to kill them. Who’s talking about new born babies? Their right to live takes precedence over you desire to be rid of them. Over new born babies , I agree. So getting back to the point that you keep reinterpreting , you think an implied right of the fetus is more important than the right to choose for the woman , you’re a tyrant What does that even mean? I think it fairly obvious if abortion is illegal , a woman is being forced legally to give birth to a baby she does not want
No one is suggesting forcing people to have babies. Oh really? They have no choice what do you call that? We have all kinds of birth control. Oh right , stupid woman shouldn’t have got pregnant you are quiet the tyrant aren’t you? But if you do, you are forced to take care of them. Right , so you’re forced to take care of them but not forced to have them even if you haven’t a choice in the matter , you contradict your own arguments brilliantly Yes. And all the their legal experts who disagree with all of them got it right. Right , but of course when it comes to gun “rights “ they have all got it right and anyone who disagrees is wrong , that’s what’s so amusing about you your totally inconsistent in your reasoning You often fall back on appeals to authority, it demonstrates a lack of confidence in your own ability. Wonder why you appeal to the law when it comes to gun rights , does that demonstrate a lack of confidence in your “ability “? I was merely showing once again your blatant hypocrisy where you quote in most your arguments American law regarding different legal situations but only when it suits , then of course the law is wrong and you’re right Your appeal is fallacious. It’s not do you even know what fallacious means? Especially since courts are NOT the moral authority, just the legal authority. Do you know the difference? I do , where did I say courts are “moral authorities “ ? Courts make legal decisions on what’s right and wrong do you know right and wrong mean regarding morality? Judges are legal authorities. Yes we have established this They make legal rulings from which we derive legal precedence and parameters. Thanks for that Perry Mason This is a moral question, and it doesn’t matter what the legal ruling is. What are you even rambling about you’re making no sense Reality is the ultimate authority and the only appeal is reason. You’re starting to sound like Depak Chopra with this piece of utter bullshit You have a fondness for the passage through a birth canal as some kind of point of personhood, but this is completely arbitrary. Yet I’m not the one applying personhood that’s you Let me restate your argument with a different arbitrary “kill” line for to demonstrate how unreasonable your position is: A baby is not a toddler until 12 months. They are completely dependent until they are toddlers. Before that they have no agency; no autonomy. Their brains are completely blank. If you demand that a woman take care of her baby simply because of the unintended consequences of getting pregnant, you are putting the rights of a crying little mass of cells ahead of the rights of the mother. You’re a monster. Thanks for that , let’s restate you position a woman if pregnant must have a baby otherwise she’s a criminal who will be branded as such the unborn s implied rights must always trump the woman’s ......you’re a typical old style Victorian tyrant There is no right of bodily autonomy that allows you to kill someone. Someone? There you go again assigning personhood to a fetus There are lots of things you can’t do because of the presence of someone else. You can’t even smoke meth around your kid in your own home. “But wait, it’s your house!” Yeah but the kid is your responsibility. Right , so using your logic a freezing homeless person suffering frostbite is entitled to room and board in your house why deny him it’s inhumane isn’t it? Even your side points are factually incorrect. A fetus actually exists. Not potentially, but actually. A pregnancy that never happened actually does not exist. Sperm doesn’t exist wow? Or Ova wow? And neither have potential? You’re getting absurd. Kettle/Pot I’m not holding anyone responsible. You’re in favour of making abortion illegal,so who are you making responsible? I’m discussing facts, not responsibility. It is a fact that we hold parents legally responsible for their children, requiring all kinds of things from them, their rights to bodily autonomy notwithstanding. It is a fact that your reasoning concerning babies in the womb applies equally to babies outside the womb. What are you on about now? They would be, if they weren’t ignorant like you. Another tiresome non answer, and regarding ignorance this coming from a buffoon who stated swimming pools were a bigger threat to American lives than Guns ....Right I don’t see how he lost anything at all by your reasoning. But we are talking about his reasoning you idiot It’s her body, and apparently that’s all there is to it. Yes , that’s my reasoning If she insisted on birth control, did the man loose anything? Ask him for his reasoning from his standpoint , the way you misrepresent every argument is typically you Haha of course you have. You’ve pretended that fetuses aren’t babies in the womb. Haha you pretended babies weren’t fetuses in the womb That’s what is always pretended in these debates, and only in these debates. Your new bit is the word “developing”. As if babies developing in the womb are fundamentally different than babies developing outside the womb. People don’t stop developing derm. Zygote to embryo to fetus to infant to toddler and so on. All of those are humans in a process of developing, both in and out of the womb. It’s not a special word. That’s right in Amarel world it’s a baby , toddler , child from the minute of conception The matter is settled. Pretty much the whole matter is settled between us. The terminology is on my side. Not your terminology, but terminology in general, which is what matters. The biology is on my side. The logical consistency is on my side. It is settled , your reinvention of terminology was amusing , biology and science also disagree with you as does law , but why would that stop you because like a big child you say “I win because I say so “ ......But that’s your thing The only thing on your side is cognitive dissonance, a concept you unsuccessfully tried to turn around on me but failed to know quite what it means. Right , but yet you display such in most your postings , no doubt you reinterpret it to mean something else to suit your latest position After you look that up, look up agency so you can use it in situation where it actually applies. I’m well aware of what agency means you’re not I was attempting to educate you I sometimes forget that you’re the same guy who thinks you can reasonably experience doubt that you are experiencing anything. I’ll let you have the last word, You’re babbling now and making no sense. I don’t forget you claimed serving a warrant on someone was an “act of violence “ , swimming pools and spoons were more lethal than guns and hilariously descended into a flying rage when your attempted defenseI’m r of Descartes cogito led to your total meltdown since it will be a little more “nuh uh” on your part, but your dissonance needs it. Thankfully the last words were mine as your stock reply would have been the usual “ buh , buh I’m right you’re wrong cause I say so ....so there “ 1
point
1
point
I try my best to be an honest person, and have stated many times I will not ban a person who is honest and respectful. I will remove you from my ban list if you continue debating in a civil manner. To answer your question, I have raised my children to be loving tolerant inclusive compassionate people who respect all innocent life. If she was raped, she would be the one telling me how it's not the baby's fault for the father's actions. There is no way a person can force someone from doing whatever they want in life. This is why we have laws to help cut down on those who would deny other's their right to life. If she ever wanted an abortion, for any reason other than Life of Mother, I would do my best to talk her out of it because I love her and understand the guilt that follows abortion. Until we change the laws, if she did not agree, she would learn the hard way. Rape is a terrible thing, but killing the baby will not remove the trauma of the Rape. That is yet one more lie from the Left. For nine months, carrying the Baby would be a very hard thing, but since when does the actions of a child's father justify taking the child's life? Taking another innocent human life, for having a bad father, solves nothing? It makes no sense at all? Sure it might help speed up the healing process after a Rape, but does that justify ending a life? No matter how terrible the scenario you can come up with, the bottom line is that their is now another human life involved. We as a civilized people must always respect the right of innocent life over the right of convenience. 1
point
I wish you would listen to this video. It's Abby Johnson's testimonial of her conversion from a big time Pro abortion supporter working for Planned Parenthood, to a strong advocate for Pro life. The movie "Unplanned" was based on her true story. It tells the truth of what Planned Parenthood abortion's trade is all about...MONEY, and having nothing to do with a woman's health. 1
point
Thank you for having the character and intellect to search out the truth rather than repeating knee jerk reaction from Pro abortion extremists. I wish you would listen to this video. It's Abby Johnson's testimonial of her conversion from a big time Pro abortion supporter working for Planned Parenthood, to a strong advocate for Pro life. The movie "Unplanned" was based on her true story. It tells the truth of what Planned Parenthood abortion's trade is all about...MONEY, and having nothing to do with a woman's health. |
