Those "unnatural" things occur BEFORE conception (if I'm understanding your argument correctly)
GOP set to adopt official abortion platform without exceptions for rape and incest
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
Those "unnatural" things occur BEFORE conception (if I'm understanding your argument correctly)
So? TD brought up the argument of mental faculties being the reason.
I just feel that biologically speaking, the most logical point where it should be considered a separate life is at conception. However, it should still be in the hands of the woman to a point.
Furthermore, with the amount of birth control options available....it shouldn't ever really be an issue.
Condoms and birth control used in conjunction with each other should be effective 99.99999*% of the time.
I concede that in cases of rape/incest that it's completely and utterly acceptable 100% of the time.
Devolution
Member
Or natural as a complicated tool we've managed to develop. (I agree with you.) It's all about perspective.
I love the fact that people think that just banning abortion will make it go away.
What will happen is that abortions will still be made but with just the added bonus of being fabulously unsafe with crazy risk for the mother if she's poor or if she's rich she'll just get one where it's allowed.
And that if you even consider what we do as unatural, I mean what makes what we do natural but what badgers or ants unatural after all...
but that's a derail for another thread.
What will happen is that abortions will still be made but with just the added bonus of being fabulously unsafe with crazy risk for the mother if she's poor or if she's rich she'll just get one where it's allowed.
And that if you even consider what we do as unatural, I mean what makes what we do natural but what badgers or ants unatural after all...
but that's a derail for another thread.
Devolution
Member
Unnatural and natural mean nothing. At this point it's about what we consider ethical. We do not consider restraining the rights of women in their early stages of pregnancy to be ethical. I agree with Roe v Wade.
Why do you keep responding to me with "religious" when I have stated in this thread that I am absolutely not religious. I don't really give a shit what a 1200 year compilation of even older books says.
Do you hear that evil laughter? Its the GOP reading your post.
I understand better the whole cartoon villain character...
Seriously. Abortions will still happen, it'll just be done by the hands of unlicensed shady back alley 'doctors' who are probably not legitimate doctors for a fucking reason.
I think it's safe to say that most people considering abortion are pretty desperate, and would go to some really great lengths to get it done.
I brought up mental faculties because you said the "child" is impacted by an abortion. I never said it was okay to destroy any life that doesn't have the mental faculties to understand the implications of it's demise. I simply said that the child is not impacted, because it cannot understand the situation. The same way that an adult who is braindead is not impacted by the house fire that killed their parents...or the doctor unplugging the cord.
That's awful, I'm sorry you had to go through that. As I said earlier, this is an awful debate topic because the emotions are so high on both sides.
I'll say it again, I agree with pro-choice to a point. I just don't like it.
Firstly, no fucking baby speaks to me that way!
Secondly, as far as opinions about when life starts/stops and what have you. religion is one of the main contributors to those hypothesis about life, and it resonates with the majority of the GOP. A little tired, so i may have missed that aboutcha..
AnathemicOne
Banned
Why is this thread full of stupid?
As a man I cannot comprehend, literally cannot comprehend what a woman goes through in the process of pregnancy and birthing a child.
Knowing this lack of comprehension, what gives me the right to tell a woman "No, you can't do this" or "Yes, you must do this" regarding this issue? Sure I may not like it and I may try to persuade but I cannot and will not outright order/demand the woman to make a choice that I want.
Its the woman's own damn body. A budding life (whether determined a "person" or not) that is still inside a woman does not trump over said woman's rights.
As a man I cannot comprehend, literally cannot comprehend what a woman goes through in the process of pregnancy and birthing a child.
Knowing this lack of comprehension, what gives me the right to tell a woman "No, you can't do this" or "Yes, you must do this" regarding this issue? Sure I may not like it and I may try to persuade but I cannot and will not outright order/demand the woman to make a choice that I want.
Its the woman's own damn body. A budding life (whether determined a "person" or not) that is still inside a woman does not trump over said woman's rights.
I don't understand this logic. Why draw the line here?
Black Mamba
Member
Surely the GOP also has on their plate increased safety nets for the single mothers who need financial support to raise the previously unwanted children.
And surely the GOP also has a plan to deal with the adoption procedures that will result.
And surely the GOP has a plan to provide counseling for these women.
Right guys?
Right!?
And surely the GOP also has a plan to deal with the adoption procedures that will result.
And surely the GOP has a plan to provide counseling for these women.
Right guys?
Right!?
It's pretty much the reason we made it legal here, really there's no other reason needed.
You make it illegal and the rate of death for women with pregnancy WILL skyrocket overnight.
In the end the baby will still be dead but the society will be responsible for another death just for some BS feelgood reason.
What I also don't get is that the GOP claim to be pro free market,
but in a free market since there's a need to be filled someone will provide the service so why should we close the legitimate market for such a service.
Devolution
Member
Draw the line where? If you mean at birth, it's because as I already said, the child no longer requires its mother's body.
Draw the line regarding mental faculties. Why does that even play a part? Why even bring it up?
"Something something bootstraps" is the extent of their plan.
Idaho also wanted to require women who miscarried at <20 weeks to get a death certificate for the miscarriage.
Devolution
Member
I don't even get the point of this. Talk about wasteful spending.
soundscream
Member
I went through a similar experience with an ex a few years ago. Wasn't my kid but I paid for the STD test and the abortion out of my own pocket, because neither her or her parents had the money. The father was a peice of shit who was going to ruin her life. An ex-con drug addict who had another kid he wasn't paying child support for. Even though we were done I didn't want to see her ruin her life.
Today she is in a much better place with a decent guy, and the guy who got her pregnant is back in jail.
Do they have to get a birth certificate every time they have unprotected sex?
cutmeamango
Banned
Ehhh, that's my point.
The circularity in arguing what's life and what's not, only to sooth any moral conflict you might have is my problem.
Just be honest.
Discuss in terms of what is best for the mother. She is the one that will be directly affected during and post pregnancy, and reversely, the child. If there are (or not) circumstances where there is responsibility as to state interference.
"A mother should be able to abort until birth". Okay.
"...Because it's not a life yet." - Ehhhhhhhh!?
"Because it doesn't think!". - EH?!
"Because it is her choice, and right or not, it is her body and her future." - Okay, there may be some legal overlapping to that reason, but I can understand it. I wouldn't agree, but still.
If we are to assess or propose values to "life", that's a horrible start.
There is mental impairments that have less operational abilities than dogs and monkeys.
But I suppose you mean "there is no organised structure that allows nervous responses or primary functions, or a level of minimal sustainability as an organism, so that is where I draw my line on the termination of."
Which is very reasonable in itself.
Black Mamba
Member
I like George Carlin's view, here:
"Theyre all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once youre born, youre on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they dont want to know about you. They dont want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If youre pre-born, youre fine; if youre preschool, youre fucked.
Conservatives dont give a shit about you until you reach military age. Then they think you are just fine. Just what theyve been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life pro-life These people arent pro-life, theyre killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, theyll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?Theyre not pro-life. You know what they are? Theyre anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They dont like them. They dont like women.They believe a womans primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state."
Every time a girl menstruates, it's just God performing a forcible unrape.
Devolution
Member
I love that one. I use broodmare often now.
It's not a horrible way to start, it's just an uncomfortable way to start.
No, I didn't mean that.
Ugh, because in my original reply YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DECISION TO ABORT IMPACTING THE FETUS. If we are talking about an already born child, that is not the same discussion. I don't see how you're confusing this.
The arguments I've presented are:
1. Fetus' are not autonomous
2. The fetus will not know that it's being killed or the implications of such an action
If either of these were not true, my arguments would be invalid, as stated. It seems you are trying to take #2 alone and skipping #1, in order to argue against my position. They are not divorcible.
My response to you talking about a 4 month old is to steer you towards #1. If you think they are divorcible or that they are mutually exclusive, you will have to show why. I cannot keep going in circles.
Is this real? If so that fucking disgusts me. Oh the Foetus inside you died, have a certificate showing how defective you are. Enjoy!
If a foetus is not autonomous then neither is a 1 week old baby, or a one day old baby, or honestly for the first 6-9 months or so. So I don't understand how that plays a part in this discussion at all. An abortion impacts the child just as much as killing a 2 month old baby impacts the child.
Freezie KO
Banned
No.
Black Mamba
Member
no, it needs a Constitutional Amendment to ban it. And there's a better chance of Romney coming out of the closet than that.
You are a good person.
cutmeamango
Banned
So then your argument is that it is (the abortion) before birth.
The whole "it hasn't developed enough, by an arbitrary standard of "is it better than a cow?" cognitive functions" (which is only fully developed by the age of 14-16 anyway) is just a secure way to sooth any moral conflict you might have or an empty argument.
Devolution
Member
Do current republicans actually follow fiscal conservatism?
Nope. Reagan added more to our deficit than every single President before him combined. He also tripled the national debt.
edit:
Yes.
Edit--No, this is literally impossible under current state laws versus federal mandates and how those two interact.
An already born baby is not dependent upon its mother's body to survive. It is not an equivalent situation, and I was not arguing anything about babies already carried to term. Try again.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
I can't believe they want to win this fucking badly.
- Status