Abortion

[McBell]

The right to kill unborn children.

It isn't a new right.
It is a right that pro-lifers have been slowly taking away from women.

 

[Thanda]

This is a straw man. Once the baby is viable outside the womb, bodily autonomy is no longer in question. The issue pertains to situations where the mother is forced to carry the child to viability against her will.

What strawman? There are people who advocate for women to be able to abort even viable children. There is a whole spectrum of people and views in the abortion debate.

And you are right it is about the mother being forced to carry the child to viability - but that is the nature of rights and responsibilities. My children have the right to food and shelter - and I can be forced, even against my will, to supply them with that. Of course the real topic of discussion when I am being forced to provide for my children is not how terrible it is that my rights (to be irresponsible) are being infringed, but what a sorry individual I am that I need to be forced to support my own children whom I helped bring into the world - and rightly so. And so it is that while you preoccupy your mind with how terrible it is that a woman is being forced to bring to term a child she helped conceive I, and others no doubt, wonder at what kind of person actually has a desire to kill their own offspring.

 

[Thanda]

It isn't a new right.
It is a right that pro-lifers have been slowly taking away from women.

It is new, if you compare hundreds of years of existence of most modern countries during which they did not allow abortion to the few decades and sometimes years in which it has been allowed.

 

[leibowde84]

What strawman? There are people who advocate for women to be able to abort even viable children. There is a whole spectrum of people and views in the abortion debate.

It is a strawman because arguments of this kind cannot be reasonably based on bodily autonomy.

And you are right it is about the mother being forced to carry the child to viability - but that is the nature of rights and responsibilities. My children have the right to food and shelter - and I can be forced, even against my will, to supply them with that. Of course the real topic of discussion when I am being forced to provide for my children is not how terrible it is that my rights (to be irresponsible) are being infringed, but what a sorry individual I am that I need to be forced to support my own children whom I helped bring into the world - and rightly so. And so it is that while you preoccupy your mind with how terrible it is that a woman is being forced to bring to term a child she helped conceive I, and others no doubt, wonder at what kind of person actually has a desire to kill their own offspring.

This is not a reasonable comparison. By keeping a child, you are agreeing to care for that child. You've had the opportunity to give the child up, and bodily autonomy ends when the direct use of your body ends. It is an issue of consent. Legally, deciding to keep and raise a child is consent to be on the hook for caring for that child. Sex, otoh, is not consent to bring a child to term. If the anti-choice crowd wants abortion to be illegal, they would have to make sexual intercourse a legally binding consent agreement to bring any resulting child to term. That brings up other problems ... what is the man responsible for during pregnancy and birth? Does the state have to cover the costs if the mother does not want to keep the child? Should contraceptives be provided by the state to make this requirement of consent reasonable? Etc.

 

[viole]

Yes, a fetus and a five year old child are equal. They are both children.

I would not put it in such a gross manner. That's using images to create an illusion that just because it is fetus in a toilet it means less than a fetus in the womb. (Kind of like saying "it's already to kill John because he shot fifty people but it's not alright to kill Jane because she shot only one"...and realize that John is 11 and Jane is 40. On top of that, without knowing these things yet, John has never been convicted of a felony while Jane has many of times but can't be tried for the same crime more than once)

So, they are equal. I just don't care for the actual aborting/action of an unborn child.

May I ask what you think of the day after pill?

Please note, this is taken without knowing if conception took place or not.

If you think it is still wrong, what do you think of standard contraception?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unveiled Artist]

May I ask what you think of the day after pill?

Please note, this is taken without knowing if conception took place or not.

If you think it is still wrong, what do you think of standard contraception?

Ciao

- viole

I'll answer but I'm weaning off debate. I don't agree with abortion and any part of it. I never thought of the "day after" pill. Don't know what that is. Contraceptives (birth control pills?), if people didn't need it for medical reasons, the best way to prevent having an unwanted child is don't have intercourse. But all of our opinions are in part or in large shaped by our experiences, interpretations, and what "makes sense." I guess taking these things makes me feel less than a "woman;" but, as a lesbian, that adds on a different preference reasons why I don't care for it. To many people these preferences shape their morals too.

So, it depends on the person. That's my take on it.

 

[VioletVortex]

Murder is defined as the malicious killing of a living person. The main question here is whether or not the killing of an unborn fetus constitutes manslaughter or infanticide. Personally, I think that an abortion in the first two trimester us definitely not a "killing", it's a medical procedure. However, you'd think one would be well aware of their pregnancy by the third ****ing trimester, otherwise, I don't think they deserve to pass their genes on anyways. So yeah, abortion is fine at any point during the pregnancy.

I completely understand that condoms can break, and in that case, the person really didn't deserve to have the burden of a child brought upon them. However, those who intentionally have unprotected sex are stupid. Also, the pill is a bad idea. It will render you sterile if you take it for too long, it's generally unhealthy, and it's very bad for the environment. If you are stupid enough to have sex without caring about the repercussions, then you really should be passing your genes on anyways, so by all means, get an abortion.

There's sort of a conflict between the killing of a baby and the greater circumstances.

 

[leibowde84]

Murder is defined as the malicious killing of a living person. The main question here is whether or not the killing of an unborn fetus constitutes manslaughter or infanticide. Personally, I think that an abortion in the first two trimester us definitely not a "killing", it's a medical procedure. However, you'd think one would be well aware of their pregnancy by the third ****ing trimester, otherwise, I don't think they deserve to pass their genes on anyways. So yeah, abortion is fine at any point during the pregnancy.

I completely understand that condoms can break, and in that case, the person really didn't deserve to have the burden of a child brought upon them. However, those who intentionally have unprotected sex are stupid. Also, the pill is a bad idea. It will render you sterile if you take it for too long, it's generally unhealthy, and it's very bad for the environment. If you are stupid enough to have sex without caring about the repercussions, then you really should be passing your genes on anyways, so by all means, get an abortion.

There's sort of a conflict between the killing of a baby and the greater circumstances.

Can you provide some evidence for your claim that the pill will leave you sterile and is bad for the environment?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you base personhood on genetics? Step me through how you do that.

Do you think that we weren't able to determine personhood before the advent if genetics as a science?


The First Amendment prohibits the US government from using religion as a basis of law.

The baby is a distinct genetic entity, differing from its mother.

I'm aware of the First Amendment, but again, my point stands. Each and every law is in the light of religion.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm aware of the First Amendment, but again, my point stands. Each and every law is in the light of religion.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

[Darkstorn]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

He's trying to say Christianity invented laws, that they didn't exist before. For example, it was okay to murder anyone you wanted before the wise Christians came and told us that it's morally wrong to hurt other people.

Those moral codes didn't exist before either.

( )

 

[leibowde84]

He's trying to say Christianity invented laws, that they didn't exist before. For example, it was okay to murder anyone you wanted before the wise Christians came and told us that it's morally wrong to hurt other people.

Those moral codes didn't exist before either.

( )

Really?! But, that is absurd.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Since Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", it proceeds logically that 100% of our laws have to be reviewed in the light of whether they touch religion. ALL American law is to be examined in the light of religion.

 

[leibowde84]

Since Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", it proceeds logically that 100% of our laws have to be reviewed in the light of whether they touch religion. ALL American law is to be examined in the light of religion.

OK, but that means that no laws can be based on religious belief, as that would be respecting an establishment of religion in the state.

 

[Darkstorn]

it proceeds logically that 100% of our laws have to be reviewed in the light of whether they touch religion

Are you serious? That makes no sense whatsoever.

They can actually touch religion... For example: Freedom of worship touches religion directly... I think you'll have to show evidence whether any such review actually takes place.

 

[BilliardsBall]

OK, but that means that no laws can be based on religious belief, as that would be respecting an establishment of religion in the state.

Yes, no laws can be founded on religious belief. But I was responding to someone ill-informed, who claimed that no American laws cross religion. Since NO laws can be founded on religious belief, ALL laws have to meet a religious test. Avoidance of religious contamination means that our Constitution is religiously welded into our society. The State must constantly ascertain what is religious in order to circumvent religion in formulating and applying law.

Very religious people were seeking to avoid a command theocracy while SAFEGUARDING a religious nation, not creating an atheist nation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you serious? That makes no sense whatsoever.

They can actually touch religion... For example: Freedom of worship touches religion directly... I think you'll have to show evidence whether any such review actually takes place.

See my response above. Hopefully it will help you.

 

[Darkstorn]

Since NO laws can be founded on religious belief, ALL laws have to meet a religious test.

Which test? Show the test. Show us the evidence. You claim that there's a review, a test. You just fail to completely show its existence in any way.

You are kidding yourself.

 

[leibowde84]

Very religious people were seeking to avoid a command theocracy while SAFEGUARDING a religious nation, not creating an atheist nation.

This is what I don't quite understand. Why would avoiding laws based on religious belief 1. mean that we are a religious nation (rather than merely a nation with lawmakers who are religious ... very different), or 2. that we are trying to prevent an atheist nation?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which test? Show the test. Show us the evidence. You claim that there's a review, a test. You just fail to completely show its existence in any way.

You are kidding yourself.

I don't know why you people feel you need to argue with everything every Christian says.

If any given law promotes or precludes religious practice, it is unconstitutional. Can we agree on this?