Current Events > The punishment for having an abortion after rape in Alabama is now greater than

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Tmaster148 05/15/19 7:09:49 PM #254:	littlebro07 posted... Can someone explain this to me I thought Roe v Wade said abortions are fine and legal So how can Alabama be like "no" Isn't this law unconstitutional? Your first mistake is assuming Alabama is making this law because they care about the constitution --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:921944889] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>littlebro07 posted...</cite> <quote>Can someone explain this to me I thought Roe v Wade said abortions are fine and legal So how can Alabama be like "no" Isn't this law unconstitutional?</quote> Your first mistake is assuming Alabama is making this law because they care about the constitution</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 05/15/19 7:11:28 PM #255:	littlebro07 posted... Can someone explain this to me I thought Roe v Wade said abortions are fine and legal So how can Alabama be like "no" Isn't this law unconstitutional? It gets challenged as unconstitutional, gets appealed, goes to supreme Court, and they say "this is fine" and that's how Roe vs Wade gets overturned. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:921944957] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>littlebro07 posted...</cite> <quote>Can someone explain this to me I thought Roe v Wade said abortions are fine and legal So how can Alabama be like "no" Isn't this law unconstitutional?</quote> It gets challenged as unconstitutional, gets appealed, goes to supreme Court, and they say "this is fine" and that's how Roe vs Wade gets overturned.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ruvan22 05/15/19 7:59:30 PM #256:	karlpilkington4 posted... IfGodCouldDie posted... s0nicfan posted... MarqueeSeries posted... The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs I'm pro-choice but I wanted to engage this argument because I think it misrepresents the opposing viewpoint and we're only going to win this fight if we understand where the opposition is coming from. You're saying that it has to be one or the other, but that's because you're not framing it the way they would. Their argument is one of personal responsibility, and they see both as an attempt to escape from it. Not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then getting an abortion to them is escaping the repercussions of their decisions. Similarly, not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then expecting others to pay to raise your child is just another form of the same problem. They're not demanding that people have kids and then expecting them to raise them without financial support. What they're demanding is for people to start realizing that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences. To them, the cheapest and most effective plan to avoid all of this is to just use a condom. Now, obviously you get into contradictions when you start talking about rape victims or abstinence-only Christian conservatives, but both represent a relatively small percentage of the larger debate. That's a fair understanding but it totally misses the point getting an abortion is taking personal responsibility, my wife had one when she was 16 and she has a friend that has had 2 since her first child(single mother) and both of them went through pretty bad emotional turmoil because of them. The majority of people don't get abortions to dodge responsibility, they get them because it is the most responsible thing to do at the time. Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. . You said in another abortion law topic that you aren't in a position to adopt, and I cited the increasing numbers of foster kids GA (overall adoptions decreasing, especially of African Americans). Do you still believe "adoption" is a viable choice? Will you pay for the mother's hospital time and care? <cite>Ruvan22 posted [p:921947040] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>IfGodCouldDie posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MarqueeSeries posted...</cite> <quote>The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs</quote> I'm pro-choice but I wanted to engage this argument because I think it misrepresents the opposing viewpoint and we're only going to win this fight if we understand where the opposition is coming from. You're saying that it has to be one or the other, but that's because you're not framing it the way they would. Their argument is one of personal responsibility, and they see both as an attempt to escape from it. Not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then getting an abortion to them is escaping the repercussions of their decisions. Similarly, not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then expecting others to pay to raise your child is just another form of the same problem. They're not demanding that people have kids and then expecting them to raise them without financial support. What they're demanding is for people to start realizing that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences. To them, the cheapest and most effective plan to avoid all of this is to just use a condom. Now, obviously you get into contradictions when you start talking about rape victims or abstinence-only Christian conservatives, but both represent a relatively small percentage of the larger debate.</quote> That's a fair understanding but it totally misses the point getting an abortion is taking personal responsibility, my wife had one when she was 16 and she has a friend that has had 2 since her first child(single mother) and both of them went through pretty bad emotional turmoil because of them. The majority of people don't get abortions to dodge responsibility, they get them because it is the most responsible thing to do at the time.</quote> Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. .</quote> You said in another abortion law topic that you aren't in a position to adopt, and I cited the increasing numbers of foster kids GA (overall adoptions decreasing, especially of African Americans). Do you still believe "adoption" is a viable choice? Will you pay for the mother's hospital time and care?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 8:09:33 PM #257:	Ruvan22 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... IfGodCouldDie posted... s0nicfan posted... MarqueeSeries posted... The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs I'm pro-choice but I wanted to engage this argument because I think it misrepresents the opposing viewpoint and we're only going to win this fight if we understand where the opposition is coming from. You're saying that it has to be one or the other, but that's because you're not framing it the way they would. Their argument is one of personal responsibility, and they see both as an attempt to escape from it. Not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then getting an abortion to them is escaping the repercussions of their decisions. Similarly, not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then expecting others to pay to raise your child is just another form of the same problem. They're not demanding that people have kids and then expecting them to raise them without financial support. What they're demanding is for people to start realizing that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences. To them, the cheapest and most effective plan to avoid all of this is to just use a condom. Now, obviously you get into contradictions when you start talking about rape victims or abstinence-only Christian conservatives, but both represent a relatively small percentage of the larger debate. That's a fair understanding but it totally misses the point getting an abortion is taking personal responsibility, my wife had one when she was 16 and she has a friend that has had 2 since her first child(single mother) and both of them went through pretty bad emotional turmoil because of them. The majority of people don't get abortions to dodge responsibility, they get them because it is the most responsible thing to do at the time. Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. . You said in another abortion law topic that you aren't in a position to adopt, and I cited the increasing numbers of foster kids GA (overall adoptions decreasing, especially of African Americans). Do you still believe "adoption" is a viable choice? Will you pay for the mother's hospital time and care? The basis of adoption is a sound strategy because a lot of people are looking to adopt. Foster care isn't the same as adoption. Most kids in foster care are older than a baby being adopted, and a lot of the time it's a short term solution while their family gets help. A number of reasons people can't adopt is because of the expensive costs needed simply to pay an adoption agency, its not an unwillingness to adopt. I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921947478] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ruvan22 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>IfGodCouldDie posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MarqueeSeries posted...</cite> <quote>The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs</quote> I'm pro-choice but I wanted to engage this argument because I think it misrepresents the opposing viewpoint and we're only going to win this fight if we understand where the opposition is coming from. You're saying that it has to be one or the other, but that's because you're not framing it the way they would. Their argument is one of personal responsibility, and they see both as an attempt to escape from it. Not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then getting an abortion to them is escaping the repercussions of their decisions. Similarly, not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then expecting others to pay to raise your child is just another form of the same problem. They're not demanding that people have kids and then expecting them to raise them without financial support. What they're demanding is for people to start realizing that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences. To them, the cheapest and most effective plan to avoid all of this is to just use a condom. Now, obviously you get into contradictions when you start talking about rape victims or abstinence-only Christian conservatives, but both represent a relatively small percentage of the larger debate.</quote> That's a fair understanding but it totally misses the point getting an abortion is taking personal responsibility, my wife had one when she was 16 and she has a friend that has had 2 since her first child(single mother) and both of them went through pretty bad emotional turmoil because of them. The majority of people don't get abortions to dodge responsibility, they get them because it is the most responsible thing to do at the time.</quote> Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. .</quote> You said in another abortion law topic that you aren't in a position to adopt, and I cited the increasing numbers of foster kids GA (overall adoptions decreasing, especially of African Americans). Do you still believe "adoption" is a viable choice? Will you pay for the mother's hospital time and care?</quote> The basis of adoption is a sound strategy because a lot of people are looking to adopt. Foster care isn't the same as adoption. Most kids in foster care are older than a baby being adopted, and a lot of the time it's a short term solution while their family gets help. A number of reasons people can't adopt is because of the expensive costs needed simply to pay an adoption agency, its not an unwillingness to adopt. I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 05/15/19 8:56:56 PM #258:	Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:921949574] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 8:59:24 PM #259:	Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921949691] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 05/15/19 9:02:38 PM #260:	Pro-lifers are just anti-women. This has been known forever now. They dont give a shit about the baby once its born and only start caring again once they become 18 so they can die in whichever war they send them out to. They're surprisingly pro-post natal abortion in that sense. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:921949861] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote>Pro-lifers are just anti-women. This has been known forever now. They dont give a shit about the baby once its born and only start caring again once they become 18 so they can die in whichever war they send them out to. They're surprisingly pro-post natal abortion in that sense.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 05/15/19 9:03:06 PM #261:	karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:921949877] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sonixs 05/15/19 9:04:38 PM #262:	Who are going to be the tough guy Republicans that tell the 10 year old rape victim that they have to carry the rapist child to term against their will. <cite>Sonixs posted [p:921949952] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote>Who are going to be the tough guy Republicans that tell the 10 year old rape victim that they have to carry the rapist child to term against their will.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Machete 05/15/19 9:04:48 PM #263:	karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>Machete posted [p:921949957] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PBusted 05/15/19 9:07:34 PM #264:	karlpilkington4 posted... I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions. Both the kid and society will when the kid is raised by an unloving parent who wanted them dead and doesnt have the means to raise them. Someone growing up in that type of environment will likely grow up to harm society. All stats and studies have shown that places with abortion are better off. And its just logical. People who dont want children shouldnt be having children. It really is a win-win. But short sighted and uneducated people who are really only in it to spite the mother like yourself cant see past their emotions. <cite>PBusted posted [p:921950074] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions.</quote> Both the kid and society will when the kid is raised by an unloving parent who wanted them dead and doesnt have the means to raise them. Someone growing up in that type of environment will likely grow up to harm society. All stats and studies have shown that places with abortion are better off. And its just logical. People who dont want children shouldnt be having children. It really is a win-win. But short sighted and uneducated people who are really only in it to spite the mother like yourself cant see past their emotions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 05/15/19 9:07:57 PM #265:	Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? There are some who believe that if a women gets raped, she secretly wanted it to begin with. --- https://imgur.com/BBcZDLJ <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:921950089] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> There are some who believe that if a women gets raped, she secretly wanted it to begin with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 9:09:17 PM #266:	Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921950139] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 9:11:40 PM #267:	Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. . --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921950240] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.</quote> Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. .</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 9:12:56 PM #268:	PBusted posted... karlpilkington4 posted... I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions. Both the kid and society will when the kid is raised by an unloving parent who wanted them dead and doesnt have the means to raise them. Someone growing up in that type of environment will likely grow up to harm society. All stats and studies have shown that places with abortion are better off. And its just logical. People who dont want children shouldnt be having children. It really is a win-win. But short sighted and uneducated people who are really only in it to spite the mother like yourself cant see past their emotions. Please take your strawman arguments somewhere else. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921950293] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>PBusted posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions.</quote> Both the kid and society will when the kid is raised by an unloving parent who wanted them dead and doesnt have the means to raise them. Someone growing up in that type of environment will likely grow up to harm society. All stats and studies have shown that places with abortion are better off. And its just logical. People who dont want children shouldnt be having children. It really is a win-win. But short sighted and uneducated people who are really only in it to spite the mother like yourself cant see past their emotions.</quote> Please take your strawman arguments somewhere else.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Machete 05/15/19 9:19:19 PM #269:	karlpilkington4 posted... Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases. So if you are for abortion in such extreme cases... but only in such extreme cases... how would you personally ensure that anti-abortionists are prevented from using the "extreme case" argument to negate those rare cases by saying they are invalid when in fact they are Not? What is to stop them from arguing "that doesn't apply here" when it in fact does? The more outlandish the claim is defined as, the easier it is for its opponents to claim it inapplicable at their discretion by citing its "inherent rarity." --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>Machete posted [p:921950541] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases.</quote> So if you are for abortion in such extreme cases... but only in such extreme cases... how would you personally ensure that anti-abortionists are prevented from using the "extreme case" argument to negate those rare cases by saying they are invalid when in fact they are Not? What is to stop them from arguing "that doesn't apply here" when it in fact does? The more outlandish the claim is defined as, the easier it is for its opponents to claim it inapplicable at their discretion by citing its "inherent rarity."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PBusted 05/15/19 9:22:53 PM #270:	karlpilkington4 posted... PBusted posted... karlpilkington4 posted... I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions. Both the kid and society will when the kid is raised by an unloving parent who wanted them dead and doesnt have the means to raise them. Someone growing up in that type of environment will likely grow up to harm society. All stats and studies have shown that places with abortion are better off. And its just logical. People who dont want children shouldnt be having children. It really is a win-win. But short sighted and uneducated people who are really only in it to spite the mother like yourself cant see past their emotions. Please take your strawman arguments somewhere else. You just said people shouldnt pay for the mothers actions in the quoted post. Its not about actually having the millions of aborted fetuses be able to have the best life they can (which obviously the US doesnt have the resources to, no country really does, when we already have millions of people homeless and starving) its about the mother gotta take responsibility! Thats the real reason hidden within for the majority of the asswipes who are against abortion. Its not about the life of a child, its just about the mother not adhering to their morals. <cite>PBusted posted [p:921950687] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PBusted posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions.</quote> Both the kid and society will when the kid is raised by an unloving parent who wanted them dead and doesnt have the means to raise them. Someone growing up in that type of environment will likely grow up to harm society. All stats and studies have shown that places with abortion are better off. And its just logical. People who dont want children shouldnt be having children. It really is a win-win. But short sighted and uneducated people who are really only in it to spite the mother like yourself cant see past their emotions.</quote> Please take your strawman arguments somewhere else.</quote> You just said people shouldnt pay for the mothers actions in the quoted post. Its not about actually having the millions of aborted fetuses be able to have the best life they can (which obviously the US doesnt have the resources to, no country really does, when we already have millions of people homeless and starving) its about the mother gotta take responsibility! Thats the real reason hidden within for the majority of the asswipes who are against abortion. Its not about the life of a child, its just about the mother not adhering to their morals.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 9:28:03 PM #271:	Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases. So if you are for abortion in such extreme cases... but only in such extreme cases... how would you personally ensure that anti-abortionists are prevented from using the "extreme case" argument to negate those rare cases by saying they are invalid when in fact they are Not? What is to stop them from arguing "that doesn't apply here" when it in fact does? The more outlandish the claim is defined as, the easier it is for its opponents to claim it inapplicable at their discretion by citing its "inherent rarity." I'm not really a fan of discussing"what if" arguments, but in cases of rape, there should be a clear exception made for the mother and it's hard to argue against it. Especially if it was reported. I'm not sure what you mean by "outlandish claims". Can you elaborate? --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921950894] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases.</quote> So if you are for abortion in such extreme cases... but only in such extreme cases... how would you personally ensure that anti-abortionists are prevented from using the "extreme case" argument to negate those rare cases by saying they are invalid when in fact they are Not? What is to stop them from arguing "that doesn't apply here" when it in fact does? The more outlandish the claim is defined as, the easier it is for its opponents to claim it inapplicable at their discretion by citing its "inherent rarity."</quote> I'm not really a fan of discussing"what if" arguments, but in cases of rape, there should be a clear exception made for the mother and it's hard to argue against it. Especially if it was reported. I'm not sure what you mean by "outlandish claims". Can you elaborate?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Machete 05/15/19 9:35:53 PM #272:	I was speaking of pro-lifers defining cases of rape/incest/etc. as being outlandish and dismissing such claims for rarity because "rare cases should not define legislature" --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>Machete posted [p:921951288] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote>I was speaking of pro-lifers defining cases of rape/incest/etc. as being outlandish and dismissing such claims for rarity because "rare cases should not define legislature"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 9:38:25 PM #273:	Machete posted... I was speaking of pro-lifers defining cases of rape/incest/etc. as being outlandish and dismissing such claims for rarity because "rare cases should not define legislature" I don't think rape cases should be dismissed at all. I just dont think they should be used as a primary source of legislation for the 98% of normal abortion cases that have nothing to do with rape. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921951406] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote>I was speaking of pro-lifers defining cases of rape/incest/etc. as being outlandish and dismissing such claims for rarity because "rare cases should not define legislature"</quote> I don't think rape cases should be dismissed at all. I just dont think they should be used as a primary source of legislation for the 98% of normal abortion cases that have nothing to do with rape.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 05/15/19 9:58:42 PM #274:	karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. . That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:921952305] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.</quote> Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. .</quote> That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Pyrocitor 05/15/19 10:03:03 PM #275:	Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. . That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus. People who whine about people having sex and saying crap like "poor decisions" and "lack of responsibility" when referring to sex generally aren't having any themselves. They feel it's a suitable punishment for people actually having sex, to make up for their lack of it. Or religious bullshit, that's the other main reason. <cite>Pyrocitor posted [p:921952486] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.</quote> Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. .</quote> That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus.</quote> People who whine about people having sex and saying crap like "poor decisions" and "lack of responsibility" when referring to sex generally aren't having any themselves. They feel it's a suitable punishment for people actually having sex, to make up for their lack of it. Or religious bullshit, that's the other main reason.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 10:39:37 PM #276:	Pyrocitor posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. . That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus. People who whine about people having sex and saying crap like "poor decisions" and "lack of responsibility" when referring to sex generally aren't having any themselves. They feel it's a suitable punishment for people actually having sex, to make up for their lack of it. Or religious bullshit, that's the other main reason. None of this is true, and you certainly don't have any data to argue your made up claim. I had sex this morning. Many people who are against abortion are in relationships and even married. Sorry, but the fact that I don't support killing, doesn't make me some sort of incel. I don't even believe in religion. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921954077] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Pyrocitor posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.</quote> Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. .</quote> That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus.</quote> People who whine about people having sex and saying crap like "poor decisions" and "lack of responsibility" when referring to sex generally aren't having any themselves. They feel it's a suitable punishment for people actually having sex, to make up for their lack of it. Or religious bullshit, that's the other main reason.</quote> None of this is true, and you certainly don't have any data to argue your made up claim. I had sex this morning. Many people who are against abortion are in relationships and even married. Sorry, but the fact that I don't support killing, doesn't make me some sort of incel. I don't even believe in religion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 10:40:58 PM #277:	Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. . That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus. Do you have any else besides "No, you're wrong''? You can't just say "You don't understand" and think that's some sort of persuasive argument. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921954135] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.</quote> Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. .</quote> That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus.</quote> Do you have any else besides "No, you're wrong''? You can't just say "You don't understand" and think that's some sort of persuasive argument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 05/15/19 10:55:08 PM #278:	karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. . That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus. Do you have any else besides "No, you're wrong''? You can't just say "You don't understand" and think that's some sort of persuasive argument. What do you want me to say? You don't want fetuses to be killed. I get that. I don't especially like the fact that killing fetuses is the most humane option available to us either. But if we value bodily autonomy and want to have standards that are morally consistent, then abortion must be permissible. Even if someone needs a transfusion or they'll die as a result, and even if there is only one person who can donate blood to them, we cannot force them to give their blood. We might call them an asshole for not giving their blood, just like we might call a woman who gets an abortion irresponsible, but we can't force them to give their own blood. We don't even permit the bodies of the dead to be desecrated unless they gave permission to have their organs harvested prior to death. That's how important bodily autonomy is. The fetus does not have a right to the mother's body, even if it needs her body to survive. We kill the fetus for no other reason than the knowledge that it couldn't survive outside of the womb anyway. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:921954753] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.</quote> Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. .</quote> That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus.</quote> Do you have any else besides "No, you're wrong''? You can't just say "You don't understand" and think that's some sort of persuasive argument.</quote> What do you want me to say? You don't want fetuses to be killed. I get that. I don't especially like the fact that killing fetuses is the most humane option available to us either. But if we value bodily autonomy and want to have standards that are morally consistent, then abortion must be permissible. Even if someone needs a transfusion or they'll die as a result, and even if there is only one person who can donate blood to them, we cannot force them to give their blood. We might call them an asshole for not giving their blood, just like we might call a woman who gets an abortion irresponsible, but we can't force them to give their own blood. We don't even permit the bodies of the dead to be desecrated unless they gave permission to have their organs harvested prior to death. That's how important bodily autonomy is. The fetus does not have a right to the mother's body, even if it needs her body to survive. We kill the fetus for no other reason than the knowledge that it couldn't survive outside of the womb anyway.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Pyrocitor 05/15/19 10:55:17 PM #279:	karlpilkington4 posted... I had sex this morning Hands don't count <cite>Pyrocitor posted [p:921954759] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I had sex this morning</quote> Hands don't count</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 11:09:07 PM #280:	Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. . That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus. Do you have any else besides "No, you're wrong''? You can't just say "You don't understand" and think that's some sort of persuasive argument. What do you want me to say? You don't want fetuses to be killed. I get that. I don't especially like the fact that killing fetuses is the most humane option available to us either. But if we value bodily autonomy and want to have standards that are morally consistent, then abortion must be permissible. Even if someone needs a transfusion or they'll die as a result, and even if there is only one person who can donate blood to them, we cannot force them to give their blood. We might call them an asshole for not giving their blood, just like we might call a woman who gets an abortion irresponsible, but we can't force them to give their own blood. We don't even permit the bodies of the dead to be desecrated unless they gave permission to have their organs harvested prior to death. That's how important bodily autonomy is. The fetus does not have a right to the mother's body, even if it needs her body to survive. We kill the fetus for no other reason than the knowledge that it couldn't survive outside of the womb anyway. I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921955370] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> Bodily autonomy doesn't need to trump right to life because it's a separate issue that abortion in and of itself doesn't violate. Not to mention that consent to sex is not consent to anything else, or that it relates to bodily autonomy at all. The mother could have gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of having an abortion and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.</quote> Sorry, I just simply disagree massively. . When you say "it wouldn't matter in the slightest", it does matter. It's literally a life that was created, and is being killed simply because of poor decisions and a lack of responsibility. .</quote> That's because you don't understand the reasoning behind why abortion should be permissible, or the conceptual difference between abortion and the killing of the fetus.</quote> Do you have any else besides "No, you're wrong''? You can't just say "You don't understand" and think that's some sort of persuasive argument.</quote> What do you want me to say? You don't want fetuses to be killed. I get that. I don't especially like the fact that killing fetuses is the most humane option available to us either. But if we value bodily autonomy and want to have standards that are morally consistent, then abortion must be permissible. Even if someone needs a transfusion or they'll die as a result, and even if there is only one person who can donate blood to them, we cannot force them to give their blood. We might call them an asshole for not giving their blood, just like we might call a woman who gets an abortion irresponsible, but we can't force them to give their own blood. We don't even permit the bodies of the dead to be desecrated unless they gave permission to have their organs harvested prior to death. That's how important bodily autonomy is. The fetus does not have a right to the mother's body, even if it needs her body to survive. We kill the fetus for no other reason than the knowledge that it couldn't survive outside of the womb anyway.</quote> I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 11:09:42 PM #281:	Pyrocitor posted... karlpilkington4 posted... I had sex this morning Hands don't count Obviously, I know how sex works. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921955400] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Pyrocitor posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I had sex this morning</quote> Hands don't count</quote> Obviously, I know how sex works.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 05/15/19 11:17:43 PM #282:	karlpilkington4 posted... I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life. I don't think we can justifiably give a fetus special rights over the mother's body. Consent to one act is not consent to another. Abortion is just as much dealing with the consenquence as carrying it to term is. Even if the fetus needs the mother to live, that doesn't circumvent the mother's human right to decide what can and cannot take something from her body. The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result, and so rather than leaving the aborted fetus on the table to squirm until it dries up and passes away, we opt to kill it instead. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:921955699] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.</quote> I don't think we can justifiably give a fetus special rights over the mother's body. Consent to one act is not consent to another. Abortion is just as much dealing with the consenquence as carrying it to term is. Even if the fetus needs the mother to live, that doesn't circumvent the mother's human right to decide what can and cannot take something from her body. The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result, and so rather than leaving the aborted fetus on the table to squirm until it dries up and passes away, we opt to kill it instead.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 11:25:06 PM #283:	Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life. The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result. Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921955957] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.</quote> The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result.</quote> Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 05/15/19 11:32:14 PM #284:	karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life. The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result. Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human. Because it's not the only situation where it occurs. In all cases, no human can take from the body of another human without consent, regardless of circumstance. You don't accept blood transfusion and organ donation as analagous, because you are focusing on the fact that they did something which resulted in the pregnancy. But bodily autonomy is always protected regardless of circumstance. That's why those comparisons are appropriate. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:921956224] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.</quote> The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result.</quote> Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human.</quote> Because it's not the only situation where it occurs. In all cases, no human can take from the body of another human without consent, regardless of circumstance. You don't accept blood transfusion and organ donation as analagous, because you are focusing on the fact that they did something which resulted in the pregnancy. But bodily autonomy is always protected regardless of circumstance. That's why those comparisons are appropriate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/15/19 11:34:18 PM #285:	karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life. The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result. Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human. Sex is usually voluntary too, but it's still rape if you stop consenting. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:921956297] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.</quote> The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result.</quote> Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human.</quote> Sex is usually voluntary too, but it's still rape if you stop consenting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ruvan22 05/15/19 11:38:44 PM #286:	karlpilkington4 posted... Ruvan22 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. . You said in another abortion law topic that you aren't in a position to adopt, and I cited the increasing numbers of foster kids GA (overall adoptions decreasing, especially of African Americans). Do you still believe "adoption" is a viable choice? Will you pay for the mother's hospital time and care? The basis of adoption is a sound strategy because a lot of people are looking to adopt. Foster care isn't the same as adoption. Most kids in foster care are older than a baby being adopted, and a lot of the time it's a short term solution while their family gets help. A number of reasons people can't adopt is because of the expensive costs needed simply to pay an adoption agency, its not an unwillingness to adopt. I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions. But the end result is that the kids AREN'T being adopted.. even newborns. So they end up in foster care, which isn't the best environment for kids. Having done contract work for DFCS, I know that while the goal is for family reunification, it more often doesn't happen than happens (once a child is removed). Regardless, this is about adopting newborns, correct? They are generally the most popular to adopt, yet are STILL not being adopted at a higher rate. So how can you say adoption is viable option? As for paying for mother's healthcare, you want to make it illegal for her to get an abortion, correct? Therefore you want her to receive healthcare and medical care during delivery, correct? Will you pay for that? (if you are still advocating adoption as an option) <cite>Ruvan22 posted [p:921956453] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ruvan22 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote> Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. .</quote> You said in another abortion law topic that you aren't in a position to adopt, and I cited the increasing numbers of foster kids GA (overall adoptions decreasing, especially of African Americans). Do you still believe "adoption" is a viable choice? Will you pay for the mother's hospital time and care?</quote> The basis of adoption is a sound strategy because a lot of people are looking to adopt. Foster care isn't the same as adoption. Most kids in foster care are older than a baby being adopted, and a lot of the time it's a short term solution while their family gets help. A number of reasons people can't adopt is because of the expensive costs needed simply to pay an adoption agency, its not an unwillingness to adopt. I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions.</quote> But the end result is that the kids AREN'T being adopted.. even newborns. So they end up in foster care, which isn't the best environment for kids. Having done contract work for DFCS, I know that while the goal is for family reunification, it more often doesn't happen than happens (once a child is removed). Regardless, this is about adopting newborns, correct? They are generally the most popular to adopt, yet are STILL not being adopted at a higher rate. So how can you say adoption is viable option? As for paying for mother's healthcare, you want to make it illegal for her to get an abortion, correct? Therefore you want her to receive healthcare and medical care during delivery, correct? Will you pay for that? (if you are still advocating adoption as an option)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/15/19 11:40:15 PM #287:	karlpilkington4 posted... Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases. Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:921956501] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases.</quote> Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 11:40:19 PM #288:	Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life. The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result. Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human. Because it's not the only situation where it occurs. In all cases, no human can take from the body of another human without consent, regardless of circumstance. You don't accept blood transfusion and organ donation as analagous, because you are focusing on the fact that they did something which resulted in the pregnancy. But bodily autonomy is always protected regardless of circumstance. That's why those comparisons are appropriate. Right, I understand. It just goes back to my previous argument that blood transfusions, etc are not the same thing as a voluntary act that the person did to themselves. There is a clear difference between someone taking a blood from someone, and a women creating a baby. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921956504] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.</quote> The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result.</quote> Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human.</quote> Because it's not the only situation where it occurs. In all cases, no human can take from the body of another human without consent, regardless of circumstance. You don't accept blood transfusion and organ donation as analagous, because you are focusing on the fact that they did something which resulted in the pregnancy. But bodily autonomy is always protected regardless of circumstance. That's why those comparisons are appropriate.</quote> Right, I understand. It just goes back to my previous argument that blood transfusions, etc are not the same thing as a voluntary act that the person did to themselves. There is a clear difference between someone taking a blood from someone, and a women creating a baby.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 11:44:38 PM #289:	Ruvan22 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Ruvan22 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. . You said in another abortion law topic that you aren't in a position to adopt, and I cited the increasing numbers of foster kids GA (overall adoptions decreasing, especially of African Americans). Do you still believe "adoption" is a viable choice? Will you pay for the mother's hospital time and care? The basis of adoption is a sound strategy because a lot of people are looking to adopt. Foster care isn't the same as adoption. Most kids in foster care are older than a baby being adopted, and a lot of the time it's a short term solution while their family gets help. A number of reasons people can't adopt is because of the expensive costs needed simply to pay an adoption agency, its not an unwillingness to adopt. I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions. But the end result is that the kids AREN'T being adopted.. even newborns. So they end up in foster care, which isn't the best environment for kids. Having done contract work for DFCS, I know that while the goal is for family reunification, it more often doesn't happen than happens (once a child is removed). Regardless, this is about adopting newborns, correct? They are generally the most popular to adopt, yet are STILL not being adopted at a higher rate. So how can you say adoption is viable option? As for paying for mother's healthcare, you want to make it illegal for her to get an abortion, correct? Therefore you want her to receive healthcare and medical care during delivery, correct? Will you pay for that? (if you are still advocating adoption as an option) Again, outrageous fees (thousands of dollars) that simply go to the adoption agency, is stopping many people from adopting. If abortion is outlawed, there needs to be a massive overhaul in the adoption process that decreases the friction for people to adopt. And no. The woman made a choice. Why am I paying for her choices? There are already welfare programs out there for people to use if they need it. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921956658] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ruvan22 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ruvan22 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote> Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. .</quote> You said in another abortion law topic that you aren't in a position to adopt, and I cited the increasing numbers of foster kids GA (overall adoptions decreasing, especially of African Americans). Do you still believe "adoption" is a viable choice? Will you pay for the mother's hospital time and care?</quote> The basis of adoption is a sound strategy because a lot of people are looking to adopt. Foster care isn't the same as adoption. Most kids in foster care are older than a baby being adopted, and a lot of the time it's a short term solution while their family gets help. A number of reasons people can't adopt is because of the expensive costs needed simply to pay an adoption agency, its not an unwillingness to adopt. I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions.</quote> But the end result is that the kids AREN'T being adopted.. even newborns. So they end up in foster care, which isn't the best environment for kids. Having done contract work for DFCS, I know that while the goal is for family reunification, it more often doesn't happen than happens (once a child is removed). Regardless, this is about adopting newborns, correct? They are generally the most popular to adopt, yet are STILL not being adopted at a higher rate. So how can you say adoption is viable option? As for paying for mother's healthcare, you want to make it illegal for her to get an abortion, correct? Therefore you want her to receive healthcare and medical care during delivery, correct? Will you pay for that? (if you are still advocating adoption as an option)</quote> Again, outrageous fees (thousands of dollars) that simply go to the adoption agency, is stopping many people from adopting. If abortion is outlawed, there needs to be a massive overhaul in the adoption process that decreases the friction for people to adopt. And no. The woman made a choice. Why am I paying for her choices? There are already welfare programs out there for people to use if they need it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 05/15/19 11:46:41 PM #290:	karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life. The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result. Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human. Because it's not the only situation where it occurs. In all cases, no human can take from the body of another human without consent, regardless of circumstance. You don't accept blood transfusion and organ donation as analagous, because you are focusing on the fact that they did something which resulted in the pregnancy. But bodily autonomy is always protected regardless of circumstance. That's why those comparisons are appropriate. Right, I understand. It just goes back to my previous argument that blood transfusions, etc are not the same thing as a voluntary act that the person did to themselves. There is a clear difference between someone taking a blood from someone, and a women creating a baby. There's certainly a difference between taking blood from someone and a mother creating a baby. But there's considerably less difference between taking blood from someone and a fetus taking nutrients from the mother. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:921956739] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.</quote> The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result.</quote> Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human.</quote> Because it's not the only situation where it occurs. In all cases, no human can take from the body of another human without consent, regardless of circumstance. You don't accept blood transfusion and organ donation as analagous, because you are focusing on the fact that they did something which resulted in the pregnancy. But bodily autonomy is always protected regardless of circumstance. That's why those comparisons are appropriate.</quote> Right, I understand. It just goes back to my previous argument that blood transfusions, etc are not the same thing as a voluntary act that the person did to themselves. There is a clear difference between someone taking a blood from someone, and a women creating a baby.</quote> There's certainly a difference between taking blood from someone and a mother creating a baby. But there's considerably less difference between taking blood from someone and a fetus taking nutrients from the mother.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/15/19 11:46:52 PM #291:	karlpilkington4 posted... And no. The woman made a choice. Why am I paying for her choices? There are already welfare programs out there for people to use if they need it. How is dumping a bunch of poor mothers and their unwanted babies on the government teat not other people paying for their choices? Abortion support should be a no brainer for the fiscally conservative. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:921956749] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>And no. The woman made a choice. Why am I paying for her choices? There are already welfare programs out there for people to use if they need it.</quote> How is dumping a bunch of poor mothers and their unwanted babies on the government teat not other people paying for their choices? Abortion support should be a no brainer for the fiscally conservative.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 11:47:17 PM #292:	hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases. Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism. Everything should be done to try and keep it alive, but the mother didn't choose what happened. It was forced on her, and this is where I agree with Dragonblade on body autonomy. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921956757] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases.</quote> Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism.</quote> Everything should be done to try and keep it alive, but the mother didn't choose what happened. It was forced on her, and this is where I agree with Dragonblade on body autonomy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PleaseClap 05/15/19 11:47:59 PM #293:	This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point --- please https://imgur.com/AmWcJjM <cite>PleaseClap posted [p:921956783] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote>This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Pyrocitor 05/15/19 11:48:53 PM #294:	PleaseClap posted... This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point Yep, he's jealous of people having sex, so wants them to be punished <cite>Pyrocitor posted [p:921956821] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>PleaseClap posted...</cite> <quote>This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point</quote> Yep, he's jealous of people having sex, so wants them to be punished</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 05/15/19 11:49:51 PM #295:	hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases. Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism. To be fair, the most common positions for both pro-life and pro-choice carry some degree of compromise despite the issue not allowing much room for it. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:921956849] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases.</quote> Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism.</quote> To be fair, the most common positions for both pro-life and pro-choice carry some degree of compromise despite the issue not allowing much room for it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PBusted 05/15/19 11:51:04 PM #296:	PleaseClap posted... This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point Yep, exactly what I said itd boil down to. <cite>PBusted posted [p:921956885] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>PleaseClap posted...</cite> <quote>This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point</quote> Yep, exactly what I said itd boil down to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NeoShadowhen 05/15/19 11:51:33 PM #297:	hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... And no. The woman made a choice. Why am I paying for her choices? There are already welfare programs out there for people to use if they need it. How is dumping a bunch of poor mothers and their unwanted babies on the government teat not other people paying for their choices? Abortion support should be a no brainer for the fiscally conservative. They cant get past the whole seeing it as murder thing. If it was simply about economics and social stability, theyd be pushing for more abortion. I dont think anybody advocates for more abortion apart from straight up eugenicists. <cite>NeoShadowhen posted [p:921956903] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>And no. The woman made a choice. Why am I paying for her choices? There are already welfare programs out there for people to use if they need it.</quote> How is dumping a bunch of poor mothers and their unwanted babies on the government teat not other people paying for their choices? Abortion support should be a no brainer for the fiscally conservative.</quote> They cant get past the whole seeing it as murder thing. If it was simply about economics and social stability, theyd be pushing for more abortion. I dont think anybody advocates for more abortion apart from straight up eugenicists.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/15/19 11:52:24 PM #298:	Dragonblade01 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases. Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism. To be fair, the most common positions for both pro-life and pro-choice carry some degree of compromise despite the issue not allowing much room for it. Yeah both sides of the aisle have people that do this and they don't realize it makes them morally inconsistent --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:921956938] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases.</quote> Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism.</quote> To be fair, the most common positions for both pro-life and pro-choice carry some degree of compromise despite the issue not allowing much room for it.</quote> Yeah both sides of the aisle have people that do this and they don't realize it makes them morally inconsistent</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 05/15/19 11:54:47 PM #299:	hockeybub89 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases. Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism. To be fair, the most common positions for both pro-life and pro-choice carry some degree of compromise despite the issue not allowing much room for it. Yeah both sides of the aisle have people that do this and they don't realize it makes them morally inconsistent The world isnt black and white. Compromise is always needed --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:921957021] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases.</quote> Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism.</quote> To be fair, the most common positions for both pro-life and pro-choice carry some degree of compromise despite the issue not allowing much room for it.</quote> Yeah both sides of the aisle have people that do this and they don't realize it makes them morally inconsistent</quote> The world isnt black and white. Compromise is always needed</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Pyrocitor 05/15/19 11:55:33 PM #300:	The party of "facts not feelings" pretends to care for a clump of cells. It's just virtue signaling because after it's forced to be born, they want nothing to do with helping the mother. <cite>Pyrocitor posted [p:921957057] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote>The party of "facts not feelings" pretends to care for a clump of cells. It's just virtue signaling because after it's forced to be born, they want nothing to do with helping the mother.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 05/15/19 11:56:07 PM #301:	PBusted posted... PleaseClap posted... This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point Yep, exactly what I said itd boil down to. I don't think this is a fair interpretation, at least not for all pro-lifers. While I'm sure there are plenty who think that way, I think just as many would sooner describe it as "don't punish the fetus for the actions of the mother." <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:921957077] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>PBusted posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PleaseClap posted...</cite> <quote>This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point</quote> Yep, exactly what I said itd boil down to.</quote> I don't think this is a fair interpretation, at least not for all pro-lifers. While I'm sure there are plenty who think that way, I think just as many would sooner describe it as "don't punish the fetus for the actions of the mother."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 05/15/19 11:57:18 PM #302:	karlpilkington4 posted... hockeybub89 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion. Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities. So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim? I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases. Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism. Everything should be done to try and keep it alive, but the mother didn't choose what happened. It was forced on her, and this is where I agree with Dragonblade on body autonomy. Bodily autonomy is not a pick and choose concept. You do not agree with him. This is a morally nonsensical stance. Either women can abort or they can't. Either they have autonomy or they don't. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:921957117] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Machete posted...</cite> <quote><cite>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Even ignoring pragmatic issues, adoption is not a solution on a fundamental level because it still violates the mother's bodily autonomy if she wants to have an abortion.</quote> Body autonomy doesn't trump the rights of a life that the mother created when she voluntarily engaged in sexual activities.</quote> So what do you think after taking into consideration the topic title, specifically the word rape and the age of the impregnated rape victim?</quote> I think rape is a horrible thing, fortunately the combination of rape and getting pregnant from that rape is very very small. Which allows us to deal with this on a case by case basis (or at-least it should be). Incredibly rare cases shouldn't be used to create legislation for the majority of cases.</quote> Why is it ok for us to murder babies when people are raped though? How does someone morally justify a "no abortions except..." stance? This isn't a topic that allows much room for centrism.</quote> Everything should be done to try and keep it alive, but the mother didn't choose what happened. It was forced on her, and this is where I agree with Dragonblade on body autonomy.</quote> Bodily autonomy is not a pick and choose concept. You do not agree with him. This is a morally nonsensical stance. Either women can abort or they can't. Either they have autonomy or they don't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PBusted 05/15/19 11:57:36 PM #303:	Dragonblade01 posted... PBusted posted... PleaseClap posted... This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point Yep, exactly what I said itd boil down to. I don't think this is a fair interpretation, at least not for all pro-lifers. While I'm sure there are plenty who think that way, I think just as many would sooner describe it as "don't punish the fetus for the actions of the mother." Theyre the same thing. <cite>PBusted posted [p:921957130] in The punish... [t:77716460]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PBusted posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PleaseClap posted...</cite> <quote>This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point</quote> Yep, exactly what I said itd boil down to.</quote> I don't think this is a fair interpretation, at least not for all pro-lifers. While I'm sure there are plenty who think that way, I think just as many would sooner describe it as "don't punish the fetus for the actions of the mother."</quote> Theyre the same thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Current Events > The punishment for having an abortion after rape in Alabama is now greater than (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > The punishment for having an abortion after rape in Alabama is now greater than