- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
I'm a liberal about as much as you are a fascist
EDIT: Self edited remark as it was uncalled for.
I'm a liberal about as much as you are a fascist
Ah yes, well that's not how it works in real life.
See you like BIG GOVERNMENT to tell a women
to tell a women she should be FORCED to carry to term a baby
and go through mental and physical changes
while you apply NOTHING of the sort to the man involved during the same 9 months.
Until you and others can do that
**** pro-lifers.
I think you may have taken this out of context. I was replying to a post about when the government should have involvement. My point was that although there is disagreement over when, there is a time when the government should become involved.
How about answering the question you quoted: Should the government have no regulations on abortion at nine months?
Certainly we can. It is not up to any individual, including you, what moral standards are. The fact is that life is involved, and the taking of life. Of course morals must be involved.It is because viability is a fact that we cannot move into the moral argument over abortion.
You either allow abortion or you don't -
I think it should be allowed but also believe it to be immoral. There is no conflict there at all. It's the same with prostitution. Some feel it should be legal even while finding it immoral. There are many such laws.
if you allow it then you have to set limits based on certain facts which aren't changing (for a long while yet) such as when the fetus is viable outside the womb because then you are harming someone who can survive unaided outside the womb.
The the direct opposite of the "A woman should have control over her own body' argument. Suddenly, after a required number of months, she no longer has control over her body and it now belongs to the State.. This 'viability' thing just doesn't stand because a baby, even after its born, is not completely 'viable' until many years later. We are still dealing with human life whether it is 'viable' or not.
I have never had any qualms about calling the bunch of cells created by an egg and sperm a human being because the "personhood" or "human beingness" argument is simply a sideshow to whether that person can survive unaided and if so - whether that survival will harm them or not.
Much like the unwillingness to call it a baby, a person, or a potential human being. Those who want to control the language feel they control the debate.
Studies show that for those born between 20 - 24 weeks, early preterms survival rate after birth is about 9 in 100 at best and even then there is a high chance of serious disability. The only anti abortion argument that can be made in reality is to abolish it altogether but then you simply go back to the old days of *back-room / back alley / back yard / back street abortion with coathangers and similar.
It is not black and white. Women should be made completely aware that they are taking a human life and that there is help available if they decide to give it up after the baby is born. But many pro abortionists are against even this counseling.
The reality as I see it is that anyone who is anti 24 weeks is simply trying to bring the limit down piecemeal (They realise a sudden drop to 0 weeks is unlikely to it has to be an incremental process over time.) to a wholesale ban because that is the ultimate end game for those who refuse to acknowledge the facts of viability.
I don't think you're getting much argument on this 'viability' thing. Whether it is 'viable' or not it is still the taking of a human life.
.Well since a potential person cannot gain citizenship, then it is up to the mother to decide what to do with her body
Are you arguing that this is a 'citizenship' issue?
Thank you for your admittal that a CITIZEN of the U.S. should be able to determine whether or not they should go through with a 9 month pregnancy which is biological, mental, and physical changes to her body without GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
Actually the government does already 'interfere'.
Seems YOU are the one confused here like most pro-lifers.
Yeah. It's all about citizenship. Stick with that unconfused position.
Roe is tenuous at best, new challenges are constantly making their way up the ladder. Only a matter of time before the rights of a defenseless child is recognized over that of the selfish, immoral justification that exists now.
Nonsense, that is your side of the argument, forcing your immorality, and disregard for life on the rest of society.
And you probably think that all acts of sex are rape too don't you?
And women don't know that their bodies go through these changes during pregnancy? This is all new to them until they find out they are pregnant?
I am all for the fathers of these unborn children stepping up to support the mother during the pregnancy. Many would, except for the woman shutting them out completely.
I do what I can, for example, right now I am talking to you.
A tad bit emotional there eh? I don't hold such contempt for those that support your position, I just am saddened that they can so devalue life that they are willing to discard it like trash. Congratulations, You have effectively laid out the worst parts of the pro abortion crowd.
If "consciousness" is the benchmark, hell, there are some walking, talking adults that would qualify for abortion. :/
Are you arguing that this is a 'citizenship' issue?
[
Actually the government does already 'interfere'.
[
Yeah. It's all about citizenship. Stick with that unconfused position.
And a lot of potentially brilliant people lost while the 'conscious' walk among us.
Ah yes, well that's not how it works in real life.
See you like BIG GOVERNMENT to tell a women she should be FORCED to carry to term a baby and go through mental and physical changes while you apply NOTHING of the sort to the man involved during the same 9 months. Until you and others can do that, **** pro-lifers.
Yes, that is how it works in real life. Do all these women still not yet get it, despite all the money spent on sex education?
The man responsible was not mentioned. And it is illegal to carry out an abortion after the baby is 'viable' or BIG GOVERNMENT will step in and she will be FORCED to carry the baby to term..
Yes, because birth control is 100% effective right?
Is it? According to whom?
Do YOU get it yet, that a person has a right to their body and what happens to it?
That is not true. Even the pro abortionists understand that is not true.
No, you much prefer that BIG GOVERNMENT decides for you and others.
Please use quotes rather than just guessing, okay?
Yes, BIG GOVENRMENT does, much to your liking. You like BIG GOVERNMENT. Don't ever say you don't.
You're quite fortunate that those babies who were 'viable' weren't somehow subject to IQ tests as part of their 'viability'. You would never have seen the light of day.
Keep dreaming, we are beyond the dark ages where men had control over women's body parts. I know YOU want to return to that era, I don't. As for a fetus rights, are you saying they should all be granted SSN and citizen rights too, and if not, why? You claime they have rights? How can they when they aren't born?
LOL is that why you and other pro-lifers are trying to get BIG GOVERNMENT involved in forcing women through their pregnancies? As for forcing immorality on the rest of society how? Am I forcing YOUR wife or someone to have an abortion? Therefore, I am forcing NOTHING on society. That is YOU and other conservatives that hate freedom.
Where did you pull that out of your ass from?
Are you saying a woman loses ALL CHOICE because she has sex? That's ludicrous.
Funny, don't see any conservative laws stepping up to support your claim. I only see the right trying to make laws to control a woman's body and nothing about the man.
Oh yeah, talking on an internet message board annonymously. Oh you activisty you. :roll:
Not emotional at all. You and other pro-lifers show your contempt for women and want big government to force them to carry for 9 months. Your contempt deserves contemp. You have laid out the true ignorance of the pro-life argument.
You're quite fortunate that those babies who were 'viable' weren't somehow subject to IQ tests as part of their 'viability'. You would never have seen the light of day.
Contempt? Hardly....I love women, most of them are more logical than many men I know. But that aside, I know that your bluster is devolving into personal attack only because you ultimately lose this argument every time.
Look, Your obvious disdain for children, and willing renaming what they are to ease your own conscience for knowingly killing them...It won't help you in the end friend.
I've lost nothing. Abortion is still legal.
I have no disdain for children and in practice for MY life I am pro-life. However, I don't agree with using BIG GOVERNMENT to force that decision on everyone else, YOU do.
Oh well, you have proven you not only do NOT know me, your comments are quite clueless as well.
I don't need to know you personally to recognize the dishonest arguments that are steeped in cliche....
Is it? According to whom?
That is not true. Even the pro abortionists understand that is not true.
Please use quotes rather than just guessing, okay?
You're quite fortunate that those babies who were 'viable' weren't somehow subject to IQ tests as part of their 'viability'. You would never have seen the light of day.
You responded to absolutely NOTHING of what he said.
Who are you to decide what EVERY woman in the US can and can't do with their bodies? Who are YOU to decide women are no more than breeder cows? Please show me in the Bible where God or Christ say women are breeder cows.
Nothing dishoenst in what I've posted. However, what has been shown is that conservatives are really for BIG GOVERNMENT.
Contempt? Hardly....I love women, most of them are more logical than many men I know. But that aside, I know that your bluster is devolving into personal attack only because you ultimately lose this argument every time.
Look, Your obvious disdain for children, and willing renaming what they are to ease your own conscience for knowingly killing them...It won't help you in the end friend.
Medical science names the stages of the gestation, not anyone else. Not even the churches who want this banned because they don't believe a woman has a right to decide her future on her own. Nor to decide who will be the father of her children.
You don't respect women. You consider them nothing more than breeder cows. Show me where Christ considers Mary Magdalene, a prostitute, to be nothing more than a breeder cow.
Nothing dishoenst in what I've posted. However, what has been shown is that conservatives are really for BIG GOVERNMENT.
How ironic, that statement in itself, is dishonest.
...
This 'viability' thing just doesn't stand because a baby, even after its born, is not completely 'viable' until many years later....
....And it is illegal to carry out an abortion after the baby is 'viable' or BIG GOVERNMENT will step in and she will be FORCED to carry the baby to term..