[W:183]Let's have a real discussion about abortion

[Josie]

People who think pets are owned things have that can be discarded have no excuses for calling fetuses more valuable than their own mothers before birth. If fetuses are too valuable to kill before the 30th week, all anti-choicers must be animal lovers.

What would you think if the owner of a pregnant cat had his/her kittens aborted because he/she just didn't want to have more cats?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

What would you think if the owner of a pregnant cat had his/her kittens aborted because he/she just didn't want to have more cats?

You mean if a pregnant queen is spayed? Vets actually do that whenever possible, not the ugly dilation and extraction method. As long as the uterus is closed, this does not pose a greater risk for the mother than if she had the surgery while in heat.

A smart person who does not want any more cats would either get her spayed before she has a chance to meet any tomcats or only adopt cats who have already been fixed. As I have pointed out multiple times, this is not a practical solution for humans.

 

[Josie]

You mean if a pregnant queen is spayed? Vets actually do that whenever possible, not the ugly dilation and extraction method. As long as the uterus is closed, this does not pose a greater risk for the mother than if she had the surgery while in heat.

Would you kill your pet's babies if you didn't want more animals?

A smart person who does not want any more cats would either get her spayed before she has a chance to meet any tomcats or only adopt cats who have already been fixed. As I have pointed out multiple times, this is not a practical solution for humans.

Yes, a smart person would do that. Lots of people aren't smart.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Would you kill your pet's babies if you didn't want more animals?

I only adopt from animal shelters, but if I rescued a pregnant cat off the street, the timing would determine that.

Yes, a smart person would do that. Lots of people aren't smart.

Yeah, like people who think pregnancy is ALWAYS the woman's fault and blame the mom for what the dad did even if she was raped.

 

[weaver2]

I can't think of the specific one, but that is a fallacy there. Probably conflation. Simply because @BroHaHa is against abortion being legal, save in certain situations IIRC, that doesn't mean that he is in lock step with all Republican policies. Most conservatives are for SSM even if the GOP is against it.

Are you saying the stats posted about the Colorado Experiment are a conflation?

 

[maquiscat]

What would you think if the owner of a pregnant cat had his/her kittens aborted because he/she just didn't want to have more cats?

Actually it happens. It's usually when they take the cat in to be spayed and find out she's already pregnant.

 

[maquiscat]

Are you saying the stats posted about the Colorado Experiment are a conflation?

I have no idea what the Colorado Experiment is nor what is has to do with what I said. All I said was that just because @BroHaHa is anti-abortion, it does not automatically mean that he agrees with all of the policies of the GOP, or even with conservatives in general. Most people are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. The error is assuming that they are either conservative or liberal on all the issues, and then try to argue on that basis.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Actually it happens. It's usually when they take the cat in to be spayed and find out she's already pregnant.

That is called a spay abortion.

Naturally, this is not attempted when the queen's breasts (she has six) are enlarged. When that happens, the kittens are almost ready to come out.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I have no idea what the Colorado Experiment is nor what it has to do with what I said. All I said was that just because @BroHaHa is anti-abortion, it does not automatically mean that he agrees with all of the policies of the GOP, or even with conservatives in general. Most people are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. The error is assuming that they are either conservative or liberal on all the issues, and then try to argue on that basis.

There are social conservatives (people who oppose same sex marriages, abortions, and equality) who are not conservative on all financial issues. Debate Politics has a compass quiz to demonstrate that. My crossover is school vouchers. Democrats seem to think kids should not go to any private schools or get homeschooling from professional teachers. If either of these are better for the kid, let the kid do it. If a kid is struggling at one school, is forcing him or her to stay there better than transferring? Otherwise I am on the left side of every issue to varying degrees.

 

[BroHaHa]

Until there is one that is 100%, in which case, we wouldn't need abortion except for medical conditions or rape. Also, just to check, you do know that abortions have been on a steady decline ever since the 80's right?

There is one that is 100% effective. Don't have sexual intercourse.

The idea that people are entitled to have sexual intercourse with zero risk of pregnancy and if medical science can't provide that they are justified in killing the unborn result of the pregnancy seems to not really be getting to the root of the issue. It's not justified or not because medical science can make it risk-proof or not to have sexual intercourse. It has to be justified or not for reasons other than that.

 

[BroHaHa]

The ones for pets and livestock also range into felonies, so you are wrong.

Do you not think that they range into felonies on the basis of ruining another's property, though? What are the exact laws you are referencing and let's see.

In a way you are correct...for more 'palatable' political purposes, some of the laws refer to the unborn as persons (not all do however.) But in terms of law...as I've asked you and others to quote and none can...not a single one recognizes rights for the unborn and the charges are brought on behalf of the mother and/or state...regarding their loss and harm.

But according to your own argument rights are not necessary for the law to protect the killing of something or someone. Livestock do not have rights, yet your own argument shows them being protected from being killed. I understand the distinction you made between the owner killing livestock and someone who is not the owner killing livestock, but two things about that:

1. Even that legal ability is not absolute. An owner may not kill a pet or an owned animal any way they choose. There are animal cruelty laws that place limits on how they can and can't do so.

2. Is an unborn human child property? I'm betting if we look into it further, in order for your argument to stand we'd have to conclude that the law properly regards an unborn child as the property of the parent.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

There is one that is 100% effective. Don't have sexual intercourse.

The idea that people are entitled to have sexual intercourse with zero risk of pregnancy and if medical science can't provide that they are justified in killing the unborn result of the pregnancy seems to not really be getting to the root of the issue. It's not justified or not because medical science can make it risk-proof or not to have sexual intercourse. It has to be justified or not for reasons other than that.

You just totally ignored one word in the quoted post: RAPE. Obviously that is NOT a solution because rape by definition is being forced to have sex despite saying no.

The only 100% effective contraception methods are spaying and neutering.

 

[prometeus]

There is one that is 100% effective. Don't have sexual intercourse.

That is what a sexually repressed or an incell would say.

 

[Lursa]

What would you think if the owner of a pregnant cat had his/her kittens aborted because he/she just didn't want to have more cats?

Merciful.

 

[Lursa]

Do you not think that they range into felonies on the basis of ruining another's property, though?

Why are you making that distinction? I dont understand.

What are the exact laws you are referencing and let's see.

Why waste my time, at least let me know why it makes a difference?

But according to your own argument rights are not necessary for the law to protect the killing of something or someone.

They're not. That doesnt mean I'm against laws that hold someone responsible for killing someone else's unborn. Why would it need rights for that?

Livestock do not have rights, yet your own argument shows them being protected from being killed. I understand the distinction you made between the owner killing livestock and someone who is not the owner killing livestock, but two things about that:

1. Even that legal ability is not absolute. An owner may not kill a pet or an owned animal any way they choose. There are animal cruelty laws that place limits on how they can and can't do so.

Cruelty and killing are 2 separate things and so are the charges. Of course they can be combined for sentencing. You seem to be getting desperate here AND off topic.

Where did I ever refer to any kind of absolute anything?

2. Is an unborn human child property? I'm betting if we look into it further, in order for your argument to stand we'd have to conclude that the law properly regards an unborn child as the property of the parent.

Feel free to do so.

Not really sure where you're going with your arguments here...what is your overall point?

 

[BroHaHa]

Why are you making that distinction? I dont understand.



Why waste my time, at least let me know why it makes a difference?


They're not. That doesnt mean I'm against laws that hold someone responsible for killing someone else's unborn. Why would it need rights for that?





Cruelty and killing are 2 separate things and so are the charges. Of course they can be combined for sentencing. You seem to be getting desperate here AND off topic.

Where did I ever refer to any kind of absolute anything?



Feel free to do so.

Not really sure where you're going with your arguments here...what is your overall point?

That for your argument to stand up I think it requires arguing that the legal system regards unborn children as property. If that's true, it's another reason that I find the legal angle on this suspect...the law seems to have not caught up with all of the issues involved in this whole thing.

As for this:

Why waste my time

The obvious answer is that you made a claim about the existence of those laws and therefore it is your responsibility to substantiate it by specifying which laws you were referring to when you made that claim.

And this:

You seem to be getting desperate here AND off topic.

Well, maybe one of us is getting desperate. My opinion is that it is the one of us who is pretending to not understand obvious implications.

 

[BroHaHa]

That is what a sexually repressed or an incell would say.

And I think what you said is what an entitled brat would say.

Opinions are great, aren't they?

 

[BroHaHa]

You just totally ignored one word in the quoted post: RAPE. Obviously that is NOT a solution because rape by definition is being forced to have sex despite saying no.

The only 100% effective contraception methods are spaying and neutering.

I didn't ignore it. It was included as an exception to the conditional proposal you made. I obviously wasn't addressing the exception, I was addressing the conditional proposal.

You are the one who typed it as an exception, not me. Were you drunk or something?

 

[prometeus]

And I think what you said is what an entitled brat would say.

Do not delude yourself, nobody gives a fuk what the sexually repressed think.

 

[Lursa]

That for your argument to stand up I think it requires arguing that the legal system regards unborn children as property. If that's true, it's another reason that I find the legal angle on this suspect...the law seems to have not caught up with all of the issues involved in this whole thing.

Well you'd have to show some legal foundation for that I guess. It seems only an assumption or connection that you're making.

As for this:

I can only write the same thing so many times in so many ways...if it's not understood, it's not my limitation.

The obvious answer is that you made a claim about the existence of those laws and therefore it is your responsibility to substantiate it by specifying which laws you were referring to when you made that claim.

None of them have it and if none of them have it...how can I show it? Not a single one recognizes any rights for the unborn.

If you dispute that, then you have to find the examples where they do. Or you're wrong.

Well, maybe one of us is getting desperate. My opinion is that it is the one of us who is pretending to not understand obvious implications.

That would have to be you. You cant show what you are asserting.

 

[BroHaHa]

Do not delude yourself, nobody gives a fuk what the sexually repressed think.

You're full of sick burns. You also sound like you are still in your teens.

 

[BroHaHa]

Well you'd have to show some legal foundation for that I guess. It seems only an assumption or connection that you're making.



I can only write the same thing so many times in so many ways...if it's not understood, it's not my limitation.



None of them have it and if none of them have it...how can I show it? Not a single one recognizes any rights for the unborn.

If you dispute that, then you have to find the examples where they do. Or you're wrong.



That would have to be you. You cant show what you are asserting.

For all your attempts at obfuscation, what you originally wrote is there for all to see. You claimed that certain laws existed that prove your point. I have asked you which ones. To name the laws you cited.

No one is asking you to show that they do or don't reflect rights for the unborn. You made that up to try to cover your unwillingness or inability to substantiate your claim.

It is also obvious that I cannot show my suspicions about what those laws reflect until/unless you actually tell me which laws you are referring to. So of course I can't show what I suspected (not asserted). But that's because you either cannot or will not be specific about these laws you say exist.

If I say, "A law exists on the books that says that putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death," and you say, "I'll bet that is an outdated law based upon something that would have been potentially dangerous when the law was written but is obviously harmless now...what law is it and we'll see?" and I refuse to specify the law, it's true that your theory goes un-tested, but it's true because I won't substantiate my claim.

 

[prometeus]

You're full of sick burns.

Is that what you call reality?

You also sound like you are still in your teens.

That was so long ago that I hardly remember those years.

 

[Lursa]

For all your attempts at obfuscation, what you originally wrote is there for all to see. You claimed that certain laws existed that prove your point. I have asked you which ones. To name the laws you cited.

I provided examples....we have laws that prosecute felonies against people that kill the pets and/or livestock of others while not recognizing rights for those other animals.

Here's one. I'm not going to bother finding others.

RCW 16.52.205: Animal cruelty in the first degree.

app.leg.wa.gov

No one is asking you to show that they do or don't reflect rights for the unborn. You made that up to try to cover your unwillingness or inability to substantiate your claim.

No I didnt make up anything...it's THE ONLY point that makes a difference in the entire conversation...which started as (paraphrased) the unborn are still not considered equal even in fetal homicide laws...they still have zero rights.

If you want to substantiate that I'm wrong...then it's up to you to show anywhere where any state recognizes rights for the unborn in those fetal homicide laws. I 'cant' do more because I cant produce something that doesnt exist

It is also obvious that I cannot show my suspicions about what those laws reflect until/unless you actually tell me which laws you are referring to. So of course I can't show what I suspected (not asserted). But that's because you either cannot or will not be specific about these laws you say exist.

WHat do you disagree with that I 'asserted' in my examples using pets and livestock? I just 'asserted' that felony charges for killing those other animals doesnt mean that those animals have rights.

If I say, "A law exists on the books that says that putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death," and you say, "I'll bet that is an outdated law based upon something that would have been potentially dangerous when the law was written but is obviously harmless now...what law is it and we'll see?" and I refuse to specify the law, it's true that your theory goes un-tested, but it's true because I won't substantiate my claim.

It appears you are just treading water here, repeating yourself because you dont want to have to back away from your a) lack of understanding of fetal homicide laws and/or b) dont want to admit that you dont like what you've learned about those laws since you got involved here.

You should admit that you've learned something...always admirable...and then move on.

 

[Scrabaholic]

What would you think if the owner of a pregnant cat had his/her kittens aborted because he/she just didn't want to have more cats?

I would think that's perfectly fine.

ETA: It's done on horses fairly often ie. when an undesirable stallion got to the mare, when she's carrying twins, etc.