Argument for allowing early Abortion

[Subduction Zone]

I did not say this.
You are using words to fit your agenda.
Whether forced or not... is what I said... I have the absolute right to refuse.
Didn't you get that? Do you get it now?

I said I am not responsible for the person's death. They die as a consequence of their circumstances.
Didn't you get that? Do you get it now?

That is different to one who is responsible for the death of their offspring... regardless of whether the offspring is present, due to their own actions, or the actions of someone else.
That is irrelevant to the fact that they are responsible for taking the life of the offspring, like the driver is for mowing down the pedestrian.
Didn't you get that? Do you get it now?

Why don't you understand the answer, and what does it mean to you, if you think a life is just a blob of cells that can be thrown in the trash?

I think any woman that believes that, should consider getting what cats get when persons don't want them getting offspring.
Ladies. Are you tired of sharing your womb? Then tie it off, and you can have all the sex you want without worrying about having blood on your hands.

If carrying a baby is such a terrible thing - like losing a kidney, and having to depend on just one, don't you think that is the better choice?
If "permanent body changes" is a concern, tie it off. Problem solved.
I am glad we don't have all women thinking like you are Tag. Oh, but wait. That just might be the solution to all our problems. Less people means more land space, which means more food and housing, and maybe more money, we can use. Hmmm.

Rape is no excuse for taking the life.
Now, since you are focussing all your energy on the offspring 'being forced upon', does that mean you are okay with the ones who were not raped not having the right to take the life of the offspring?
I'm sure you don't think so. So then your questions here are irrelevant to anything I am saying, because rape is not the only way a woman gets pregnant, and there are only a significant few, who get pregnant from rape, compared to those who become pregnant through promiscuous sex.

Why don't I focus on the reason for the kidney loss. Oh. He smoked his kidneys to death, so...
No. Focusing on one factor does not change the focus of the issue.
It only serves as a strawman, set up to support the loaded question.
Yes. I think that, "I'm always right, and you are dishonest." feeling is the key player here.

What can I say though, to put you at rest? Let me try this...
Some women who are raped, when they see

Some don't even have to see, but just knowing that a life began - whether it's in its earliest stage, or late, the fact that even when we are outside the womb, there is an ongoing process... it's called growing. They realize that's what's happening from the first trimester. ...their conscience screams at them, that they cannot take the life. To them, it's a life.

The person with the kidney loss, is a life too, and someone may say, 'You know. I can make this sacrifice, and give a kidney." That is their conscience. It might be a dear friend, or a total stranger.
There are some person, who are so move by images of children suffering, that they give up thir life - that is, they don't live for themselves, and they devote time, energy, and money, to save some. They cannot save all, but they help whom they can.

However, there is a difference between not helping someone, and killing someone.
If my illustration did not help you, see that, and really you don't see it - the difference, I think you don't want to, because Tag always wins, even when he loses.

Spoiler: illustration

I am not responsible for the death of someone who was hit by a car, and died on my pavement, because I did not go out and try to give him CPR, but instead called Emergency.
If I drove the car that plowed into him, then, yes, I am responsible for his death.

That's my view.
There is no way else to say this, to be clearer.
Oh. The people who argue that the fetus is not alive, know why they argue that, because if you can establish that as a reality, you clear your conscience and your accountability for taking a life.

I know you guys say you don't believe in God, and so you have no need to feel accountable to any higher being, so you free yourself, right?
I believe you are not free of accountability. I believe in the saying, 'You reap what you sow'. I believe there is true justice, which will be served.
I know a lot of people don't care about life and death, but that's okay.

Sorry, but even if a fetus is fully "alive" a person still has the rights to autonomy over one's body. Oddly enough whenever it was you a man in question with a similar need you gave yourself the right to self decision. Only when it comes to a women's uterus do you try to make a decision for her.

Your reasoning is not consistent. In fact I don't see any prolife person here with a consistent set of rules of reason when it comes to a women's uterus than it does to any other part of the body.

Why is that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did not say this.

Yes you did:

If he forced himself on me without my permission, he has commited a criminal act, and the consequences are not on anyone but him.

You are using words to fit your agenda.

No, it's a direct quote from your post.

I said I am not responsible for the person's death. They die as a consequence of their circumstances.

Those circumstances being: not being able to survive without the use of another person's body....

Didn't you get that? Do you get it now?

I did. It appears that you're the one who doesn't (want to?)

That is different to one who is responsible for the death of their offspring... regardless of whether the offspring is present, due to their own actions, or the actions of someone else.

How?
What if the dude in the example is your off spring that requires your kidney?
Why is a uterus different from a kidney?

That is irrelevant to the fact that they are responsible for taking the life of the offspring, like the driver is for mowing down the pedestrian.

False analogy. The pedestrian's survival isn't dependent on the use of the driver's body parts.

Why don't you understand the answer

I understand your answer. The problem rather is that it's not an answer to the question asked. The problem is not your answer. The problem is you not understanding the question.

if you think a life is just a blob of cells that can be thrown in the trash?

Strawman.

Ladies. Are you tired of sharing your womb? Then tie it off, and you can have all the sex you want without worrying about having blood on your hands.

My wife did that after our second kid.
She didn't before we didn't have any kids, because we still wanted kids later in life.
We never had to resort to an abortion, but in a few occasions we did go for a "morning after pill". Once we had a little...eum... "condom accident" and on another occasion she found out after the ...eum ... "fact" that she forgot to take her pill.

We did have one abortion, but then we were actively trying to get a second kid and it turned to be an ectopic pregnancy.

And there you go again, trying to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
Why do you feel like you have more authority over what happens in or to a person's body then that person him/herself?

If "permanent body changes" is a concern, tie it off. Problem solved.

Who's problem? The woman's problem? Or rather YOUR problem?

Rape is no excuse for taking the life.
Now, since you are focussing all your energy on the offspring 'being forced upon', does that mean you are okay with the ones who were not raped not having the right to take the life of the offspring?

As I said in another post to someone else, the rape thing is just to see if we can at least find some common ground there. But alas...

In truth, to me it is completely irrelevant WHY a woman wants an abortion.

When you require a kidney and I am the only match and ask me for my kidney, I get to say "no" without having to explain myself. My body, my choice.

To give a less invasive example, if you require blood in a matter of life or death and I for some reason am the only person with the correct blood type and I am asked for a donation, I also get to say "no" without having to explain myself. My body, my choice.

Why should a uterus be any different?

I'm sure you don't think so. So then your questions here are irrelevant to anything I am saying, because rape is not the only way a woman gets pregnant, and there are only a significant few, who get pregnant from rape, compared to those who become pregnant through promiscuous sex.

As said, it's just to see if we can at least find some common ground there... to see if you are at least capable of having some compassion with rape victims. But even there you seem quite heartless to those women.

Having said that: it doesn't matter to me at all how the pregnancy came about.

Why don't I focus on the reason for the kidney loss. Oh. He smoked his kidneys to death, so...
No. Focusing on one factor does not change the focus of the issue.
It only serves as a strawman, set up to support the loaded question.
Yes. I think that, "I'm always right, and you are dishonest." feeling is the key player here.

No. The kidney thing is to illustrate a deeper point. A point that is either flying over your head or which you are deliberately dodging (not sure which). That deeper point being that a person is the master and ultimate authority over his own body.

What can I say though, to put you at rest?

Nothing. As long as their are people who deny others the right to decide what happens to their own bodies, I will be there, sticking up for them.

Let me try this...
Some women who are raped, when they see

Some don't even have to see, but just knowing that a life began - whether it's in its earliest stage, or late, the fact that even when we are outside the womb, there is an ongoing process... it's called growing. They realize that's what's happening from the first trimester. ...their conscience screams at them, that they cannot take the life. To them, it's a life.

If they want to keep the child, good for them. Unlike some people, I don't tell people what they can or can't or should or shouldn't do to their own bodies.

I only defend their right to decide it for themselves.

The person with the kidney loss, is a life too, and someone may say, 'You know. I can make this sacrifice, and give a kidney." That is their conscience. It might be a dear friend, or a total stranger.
There are some person, who are so move by images of children suffering, that they give up thir life - that is, they don't live for themselves, and they devote time, energy, and money, to save some. They cannot save all, but they help whom they can.

However, there is a difference between not helping someone, and killing someone.
If my illustration did not help you, see that, and really you don't see it - the difference, I think you don't want to, because Tag always wins, even when he loses.

What you did there is try and prey on emotion.
It's an emotional argument. You post a picture of a cute little baby that is already in, what... month 8 of the pregnancy? If the woman gets an abortion there, it's called a c-section.

Meanwhile, you are still completely ignoring the issue of bodily rights.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How?
What if the dude in the example is your off spring that requires your kidney?
Why is a uterus different from a kidney?

Oh, that's easy Men don't have a uterus therefore abortion is immoral

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No need to resort to lying about me. This post is propaganda, and twisted.
I did not say the things you claim here. Why resort to lies? Do they make your argument stronger? They don't. They only show your character - and lying does not make one look pretty,

...and you also use very twisted logic, and thinking.

Whatever.

Please respond to the case of the Ukrainian kids being gangraped by Russian army mobs after their villages got carpet bombed and their parents killed before their eyes.

If YOU had a say in it, would you have allowed these abortions to take place?
In your eyes, are these 16-year old kids now "murderers"?



As I said in the previous post: to me it matters not how the pregnancy came about, nor what the motivation of the abortion is. My position is that people are masters of their own bodies and that's it.

I'm just curious how deep it goes in your stance and which point you would say "yeah, ok, in THAT case - i get it".

In case you haven't noticed, my examples are becoming progressively more macabre and gruesome. At this point, we are at almost the worst cases imaginable..... Pregnancies as a result of the most horrible war crimes one could engage in.

 

[nPeace]

Yes you did:





No, it's a direct quote from your post.



Those circumstances being: not being able to survive without the use of another person's body....



I did. It appears that you're the one who doesn't (want to?)



How?
What if the dude in the example is your off spring that requires your kidney?
Why is a uterus different from a kidney?



False analogy. The pedestrian's survival isn't dependent on the use of the driver's body parts.



I understand your answer. The problem rather is that it's not an answer to the question asked. The problem is not your answer. The problem is you not understanding the question.



Strawman.



My wife did that after our second kid.
She didn't before we didn't have any kids, because we still wanted kids later in life.
We never had to resort to an abortion, but in a few occasions we did go for a "morning after pill". Once we had a little...eum... "condom accident" and on another occasion she found out after the ...eum ... "fact" that she forgot to take her pill.

We did have one abortion, but then we were actively trying to get a second kid and it turned to be an ectopic pregnancy.

And there you go again, trying to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
Why do you feel like you have more authority over what happens in or to a person's body then that person him/herself?



Who's problem? The woman's problem? Or rather YOUR problem?



As I said in another post to someone else, the rape thing is just to see if we can at least find some common ground there. But alas...

In truth, to me it is completely irrelevant WHY a woman wants an abortion.

When you require a kidney and I am the only match and ask me for my kidney, I get to say "no" without having to explain myself. My body, my choice.

To give a less invasive example, if you require blood in a matter of life or death and I for some reason am the only person with the correct blood type and I am asked for a donation, I also get to say "no" without having to explain myself. My body, my choice.

Why should a uterus be any different?



As said, it's just to see if we can at least find some common ground there... to see if you are at least capable of having some compassion with rape victims. But even there you seem quite heartless to those women.

Having said that: it doesn't matter to me at all how the pregnancy came about.



No. The kidney thing is to illustrate a deeper point. A point that is either flying over your head or which you are deliberately dodging (not sure which). That deeper point being that a person is the master and ultimate authority over his own body.




Nothing. As long as their are people who deny others the right to decide what happens to their own bodies, I will be there, sticking up for them.



If they want to keep the child, good for them. Unlike some people, I don't tell people what they can or can't or should or shouldn't do to their own bodies.

I only defend their right to decide it for themselves.




What you did there is try and prey on emotion.
It's an emotional argument. You post a picture of a cute little baby that is already in, what... month 8 of the pregnancy? If the woman gets an abortion there, it's called a c-section.

Meanwhile, you are still completely ignoring the issue of bodily rights.

So after that long circle, answer this.
The uterus is the kidney, right?
The fetus is the dude hooked up to the kidney, right?
The doctor stabs the dude to death, so that the dude is no longer hooked up to the kidney right, just as they rip the fetus to shreds, right?
Or, the owner of the uterus poisons the fetus until it is gone.
So disconnecting the kidney is comparable to stabbing to death the dude, or poisoning him, right?

Is that correct?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did not say this.
You are using words to fit your agenda.
Whether forced or not... is what I said... I have the absolute right to refuse.
Didn't you get that? Do you get it now?

I said I am not responsible for the person's death. They die as a consequence of their circumstances.
Didn't you get that? Do you get it now?

That is different to one who is responsible for the death of their offspring... regardless of whether the offspring is present, due to their own actions, or the actions of someone else.
That is irrelevant to the fact that they are responsible for taking the life of the offspring, like the driver is for mowing down the pedestrian.
Didn't you get that? Do you get it now?

Why don't you understand the answer, and what does it mean to you, if you think a life is just a blob of cells that can be thrown in the trash?

I think any woman that believes that, should consider getting what cats get when persons don't want them getting offspring.
Ladies. Are you tired of sharing your womb? Then tie it off, and you can have all the sex you want without worrying about having blood on your hands.

If carrying a baby is such a terrible thing - like losing a kidney, and having to depend on just one, don't you think that is the better choice?
If "permanent body changes" is a concern, tie it off. Problem solved.
I am glad we don't have all women thinking like you are Tag. Oh, but wait. That just might be the solution to all our problems. Less people means more land space, which means more food and housing, and maybe more money, we can use. Hmmm.

Rape is no excuse for taking the life.
Now, since you are focussing all your energy on the offspring 'being forced upon', does that mean you are okay with the ones who were not raped not having the right to take the life of the offspring?
I'm sure you don't think so. So then your questions here are irrelevant to anything I am saying, because rape is not the only way a woman gets pregnant, and there are only a significant few, who get pregnant from rape, compared to those who become pregnant through promiscuous sex.

Why don't I focus on the reason for the kidney loss. Oh. He smoked his kidneys to death, so...
No. Focusing on one factor does not change the focus of the issue.
It only serves as a strawman, set up to support the loaded question.
Yes. I think that, "I'm always right, and you are dishonest." feeling is the key player here.

What can I say though, to put you at rest? Let me try this...
Some women who are raped, when they see

Some don't even have to see, but just knowing that a life began - whether it's in its earliest stage, or late, the fact that even when we are outside the womb, there is an ongoing process... it's called growing. They realize that's what's happening from the first trimester. ...their conscience screams at them, that they cannot take the life. To them, it's a life.

The person with the kidney loss, is a life too, and someone may say, 'You know. I can make this sacrifice, and give a kidney." That is their conscience. It might be a dear friend, or a total stranger.
There are some person, who are so move by images of children suffering, that they give up thir life - that is, they don't live for themselves, and they devote time, energy, and money, to save some. They cannot save all, but they help whom they can.

However, there is a difference between not helping someone, and killing someone.
If my illustration did not help you, see that, and really you don't see it - the difference, I think you don't want to, because Tag always wins, even when he loses.

Spoiler: illustration

I am not responsible for the death of someone who was hit by a car, and died on my pavement, because I did not go out and try to give him CPR, but instead called Emergency.
If I drove the car that plowed into him, then, yes, I am responsible for his death.

That's my view.
There is no way else to say this, to be clearer.
Oh. The people who argue that the fetus is not alive, know why they argue that, because if you can establish that as a reality, you clear your conscience and your accountability for taking a life.

I know you guys say you don't believe in God, and so you have no need to feel accountable to any higher being, so you free yourself, right?
I believe you are not free of accountability. I believe in the saying, 'You reap what you sow'. I believe there is true justice, which will be served.
I know a lot of people don't care about life and death, but that's okay.

Just get your tubes tied, problem solved!

I've been reading a lot of comments lately, from women who have tried to do just that. And you know what they found out when they asked their doctors about it.
Well, for some bizarre reason, she requires her husband's written permission before she can do that to HER OWN BODY. I've read others about single women who had to get their father's permission first. Oddly enough, vasectomies don't seem to require spousal consent. Oh, and apparently doctors can refuse to provide tubal ligations, just based on their own feelings. Looks like yet another way in which women are infantilized.
So it's not really all as simple as it all seems. Which of course, is the point of leaving these decisions up to the person who is directly being effected, and nobody else.

Sterilization of Women: Ethical Issues and Considerations
A woman was told she needed her husband's permission to get her tubes tied. Her story went viral, but it's not uncommon.
I Really Didn't Want to Have Kids, So I Had My Tubes Tied at 26
The Outrageous Reasons These Women Couldn’t Get Their Tubes Tied


"But for women on Medicaid, there are more restrictions in place. Federal funds cannot be used to sterilize women younger than 21, under Medicaid regulations. Women who want sterilization must sign a consent form and wait 30 days before the procedure if they are on Medicaid, compared to privately insured women with no wait period.

Federal laws allow providers to refuse sterilization services to patients due to religious objections. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 18 states allow some of their health care providers to refuse sterilization services to patients.

The Catholic Church prohibits sterilization, and as many as one-in-six hospitals in America are Catholic Church-affiliated."

 

[nPeace]

Whatever.

Please respond to the case of the Ukrainian kids being gangraped by Russian army mobs after their villages got carpet bombed and their parents killed before their eyes.

If YOU had a say in it, would you have allowed these abortions to take place?
In your eyes, are these 16-year old kids now "murderers"?



As I said in the previous post: to me it matters not how the pregnancy came about, nor what the motivation of the abortion is. My position is that people are masters of their own bodies and that's it.

I'm just curious how deep it goes in your stance and which point you would say "yeah, ok, in THAT case - i get it".

In case you haven't noticed, my examples are becoming progressively more macabre and gruesome. At this point, we are at almost the worst cases imaginable..... Pregnancies as a result of the most horrible war crimes one could engage in.

Saying "Whatever" to that, is an indication that you do not care about lying about others, and you don't care... even a little, to show you have any kind of dignity.

If that's the way you are, and you like it that way, who am I to get in your way.
It gives me a better understanding of why you think you are so important.

I am responding to this post, not for your sake, but it's a public forum. So...

I'm very sorry for those in Ukraine and other parts of the world who undergo serious injustices. They have my deepest sympathy.

I'm sure those 16 year olds are more ignorant than the people that have been brainwashed by the propaganda people like you spread.
That doesn't make them not guilty of murder, but as I said before, my posts here does not include ignorant people... some of whom I am sure, will now have a bruised conscience, they will now have to live with.
While. on the other hand, some will become like you.

I'll repeat what I said.
I want to express sympathy for those women who abort their offspring out of ignorance, confusion, and irrational thinking.
I understand that such things do happen, and as imperfect beings, we do not always do the right thing.
My posts do not apply to them.

That answers your question.
***STAFF EDIT***

Post the link where I said I would have no problem disconnecting myself because it was forced upon me.... and tell me this... Do you think a person who was raped, at whatever age, should take a knife or gun, and cut the throat, and genital organs of the rapist, or shoot them to death, when they get that opportunity... like maybe when they are sleeping in a hospital bed, or their apartment? (I'm not talking about a self-defense against an attack). Are they innocent of murder?
Your answer please.

 

[nPeace]

Just get your tubes tied, problem solved!

I've been reading a lot of comments lately, from women who have tried to do just that. And you know what they found out when they asked their doctors about it.
Well, for some bizarre reason, she requires her husband's written permission before she can do that to HER OWN BODY. I've read others about single women who had to get their father's permission first. Oddly enough, vasectomies don't seem to require spousal consent. Oh, and apparently doctors can refuse to provide tubal ligations, just based on their own feelings. Looks like yet another way in which women are infantilized.
So it's not really all as simple as it all seems. Which of course, is the point of leaving these decisions up to the person who is directly being effected, and nobody else.

Sterilization of Women: Ethical Issues and Considerations
A woman was told she needed her husband's permission to get her tubes tied. Her story went viral, but it's not uncommon.
I Really Didn't Want to Have Kids, So I Had My Tubes Tied at 26
The Outrageous Reasons These Women Couldn’t Get Their Tubes Tied


"But for women on Medicaid, there are more restrictions in place. Federal funds cannot be used to sterilize women younger than 21, under Medicaid regulations. Women who want sterilization must sign a consent form and wait 30 days before the procedure if they are on Medicaid, compared to privately insured women with no wait period.

Federal laws allow providers to refuse sterilization services to patients due to religious objections. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 18 states allow some of their health care providers to refuse sterilization services to patients.

The Catholic Church prohibits sterilization, and as many as one-in-six hospitals in America are Catholic Church-affiliated."

I understand all of this, thanks.
What I said, apply to people who don't want to share their body.
An owner of a cat, may not have food to feed more cats, but he does not want to destroy the kittens (I know of someone who says he does).

So rather than snuff out the expected life, or already existing life, because "you don't want to share your body", that seems to be the more considerate and compassionate solution.
Or cut out the womb, and ask God, why he gave you one in the first place.

...but seriously, treating life as trash, is really not cool.
I don't even agree with people who say, "Maybe they should have been aborted, or wrapped in a bag, and thrown in the trash. Then they wouldn't be able to do it to others. Why should they get to enjoy life".
...but it's a valid point. They are breathing air, and seeing, and feeling, but snuffing out lives at will.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand all of this, thanks.
What I said, apply to people who don't want to share their body.
An owner of a cat, may not have food to feed more cats, but he does not want to destroy the kittens (I know of someone who says he does).

So rather than snuff out the expected life, or already existing life, because "you don't want to share your body", that seems to be the more considerate and compassionate solution.
Or cut out the womb, and ask God, why he gave you one in the first place.

...but seriously, treating life as trash, is really not cool.
I don't even agree with people who say, "Maybe they should have been aborted, or wrapped in a bag, and thrown in the trash. Then they wouldn't be able to do it to others. Why should they get to enjoy life".
...but it's a valid point. They are breathing air, and seeing, and feeling, but snuffing out lives at will.

I really don't think you're understanding the kidney analogy.

 

[nPeace]

I really don't think you're understanding the kidney analogy.

You say so, but I don't believe you. I think you know I understand perfectly well.

The problem lies in getting the analogy to fit your argument. Because it does not support your argument, you will accuse me of being obtuse... so as to try to feel you are right.

It's a sort of comfort plea, where persons try to pat themselves on the shoulder, and say, "Dont worry. He's wrong."

 

[SkepticThinker]

You say so, but I don't believe you. I think you know I understand perfectly well.

No, I actually mean what I said.
I'm not the first to point it out.

The problem lies in getting the analogy to fit your argument. Because it does not support your argument, you will accuse me of being obtuse... so as to try to feel you are right.

It's a sort of comfort plea, where persons try to pat themselves on the shoulder, and say, "Dont worry. He's wrong."

I haven't called you obtuse. I said I don't think you understand it, judging from your responses.

 

[nPeace]

No, I actually mean what I said.
I'm not the first to point it out.


I haven't called you obtuse. I said I don't think you understand it, judging from your responses.

The only way I would understand is if I agree that the fetus be killed, right?
Less than a year is too long to keep someone alive, and deliver them right, even if you don't care for them after that, but allow someone else to... who would be more than happy to?

I understand quite well. More than you think.
What if I were to say all those with two kidneys would be more than happy to know that all they have to do to save a life, is lend their kidney for 9 months, and they don't lose it permanently, but after the 9 month the man does not need their kidney anymore, and they have it for life.
They basically just allowed their kidney to be used temporarily.

Would that make any difference to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So after that long circle, answer this.
The uterus is the kidney, right?

The uterus, just like the kidney, is a body part.

The fetus is the dude hooked up to the kidney, right?

Yes, both require the use of another person's body parts to stay alive.

The doctor stabs the dude to death, so that the dude is no longer hooked up to the kidney right, just as they rip the fetus to shreds, right?

No. The owner of the body part just refuses to have the third party use it.
Regardless of what that procedure is like. The owner of the body part gets to decide what happens to it.
And if that owner decides it can't be used while it already is being used, then whatever must be done to stop that usage must be done. Like with every procedure (if such is required), care must be taken to minimize the suffering if any suffering could be caused by it.

However what the procedure is like, is irrelevant to the point. That point being: the owner of the body is the ultimate authority of what can or can't happen to said body.

Or, the owner of the uterus poisons the fetus until it is gone.
So disconnecting the kidney is comparable to stabbing to death the dude, or poisoning him, right?

Is that correct?

No.

I made no comments on what the procedure is like. It is not relevant to the point.
As with all medical procedures, care should be taken to minimize suffering for all parties involved.

What procedure is used, is not relevant to the point.
What is relevant to the point is that the owner of the body has the final say of what happens to his or her body. That's it.



Note how you are once again trying to prey on emotion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just get your tubes tied, problem solved!

I've been reading a lot of comments lately, from women who have tried to do just that. And you know what they found out when they asked their doctors about it.
Well, for some bizarre reason, she requires her husband's written permission before she can do that to HER OWN BODY. I've read others about single women who had to get their father's permission first.

WOW!!

My wife, who's still very much in the age category of potential child bearing, had no issues with this at all in Belgium. Nobody asked me for my permission. Neither did anybody ask her parents for permission.


The surgeon did ask her several times on EVERY visit, including right before the procedure, if she was "absolutely certain" she wanted to do this. That I can understand. It's rather permanent after all - you better be sure what you're doing.

The Catholic Church prohibits sterilization, and as many as one-in-six hospitals in America are Catholic Church-affiliated."

Them again..........

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Saying "Whatever" to that, is an indication that you do not care about lying about others, and you don't care... even a little, to show you have any kind of dignity.

No. I said "whatever" because it's a waste of energy to go in on the false accusations which only serve to dodge the points made and derail from the actual topic.

I'm very sorry for those in Ukraine and other parts of the world who undergo serious injustices. They have my deepest sympathy.

I'm sure those 16 year olds are more ignorant than the people that have been brainwashed by the propaganda people like you spread.
That doesn't make them not guilty of murder, but as I said before, my posts here does not include ignorant people... some of whom I am sure, will now have a bruised conscience, they will now have to live with.
While. on the other hand, some will become like you.

"like me"? That sounds like an attempt to be insulting.
You didn't answer the question, btw.

I asked you that if YOU had a say in it, would you have forced them all to stay pregnant?
As for "they will now have to live with it".... did you miss the part where their villages got carpet bombed while they were there, saw their parents murdered brutally before their eyes and then got gang-raped by the very soldiers that did that? And you then say that they now "have to live with it", because they had an abortion after being gang raped by those warcriminals?????????

This is extremely disturbing and unsettling.

I'll repeat what I said.
I want to express sympathy for those women who abort their offspring out of ignorance, confusion, and irrational thinking.
I understand that such things do happen, and as imperfect beings, we do not always do the right thing.
My posts do not apply to them.

"ignorant"? What are you talking about?

Do you think a person who was raped, at whatever age, should take a knife or gun, and cut the throat, and genital organs of the rapist, or shoot them to death, when they get that opportunity... like maybe when they are sleeping in a hospital bed, or their apartment? (I'm not talking about a self-defense against an attack). Are they innocent of murder?
Your answer please.

What is the point of that question?

What you talk about there is "street justice".
Rapists should be held accountable in court, just like any other case of crime.

In the specific case of Ukraine, that's war with an invading murderous army. The rules are a bit different there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I really don't think you're understanding the kidney analogy.

I think it's more a case of deliberately dodging the point of the analogy.

At this point, it has been explained so many times in so many ways by so many different people, I can no longer believe that it's still misunderstood.

 

[nPeace]

The uterus, just like the kidney, is a body part.



Yes, both require the use of another person's body parts to stay alive.




No. The owner of the body part just refuses to have the third party use it.
Regardless of what that procedure is like. The owner of the body part gets to decide what happens to it.
And if that owner decides it can't be used while it already is being used, then whatever must be done to stop that usage must be done. Like with every procedure (if such is required), care must be taken to minimize the suffering if any suffering could be caused by it.

However what the procedure is like, is irrelevant to the point. That point being: the owner of the body is the ultimate authority of what can or can't happen to said body.



No.

I made no comments on what the procedure is like. It is not relevant to the point.
As with all medical procedures, care should be taken to minimize suffering for all parties involved.

What procedure is used, is not relevant to the point.
What is relevant to the point is that the owner of the body has the final say of what happens to his or her body. That's it.



Note how you are once again trying to prey on emotion.

Whatever must be done?
So that would include killing, murdering... right?
That's all I am saying. Why did you have to take the conversation in repeated circles, to come back to the same point?

So all I am basically getting from your argument is, it's okay to take a life, or murder someone, because it's your body.

I am picturing someone in their house who wants somone to leave, and it's not happening soon enough... the police cannot move them, and it may take quite some time in court, so by any means necessary - strangulation; stabbing to death, shooting to death... So long as that person is no longer in their house.

So no one is allowed the opportunity to take that person in, because they are no more. Sad.

Anyway, if I do not take my leave, I will be posting the same thing, over and over, with you doing the same... just altering it with slight adjustment... basically the same flawed argument.
I don't want to be just wasting time.

...but look. I'm genuinely curious.... No, it's curiosity.
Lol. Sure it is... How many posts after... Right. Bye bye.