Overturning Roe V Wade

[Kenny]

And so... to all!!!

This is why we have courts because we both believe passionately in our each individual sides.

As a side note, have no issue with loving a person who choose to have an abortion.

So.. to not belabor or rehash the rehash what each of us already know,

Have a great rest of your day

 

[Kenny]

It's not. And I'm seriously starting to wonder if you're even reading my posts.

Comparing a fetus/blastocyst/zygote to a fully grown, fully developed, thinking, breathing, fully conscious human being with social ties and a life is silly.

Another poster pointed out how your comparison could be relevant, like if the 75 year-old guy needed a kidney, and someone was forcing me to give mine to him without my consent.

#401

 

[Kenny]

Oh, do you take her on piggyback? Connect her to your lungs via some sort of tube?

#401

 

[Kenny]

I'm for defending human rights, which includes body autonomy. Which is not about labor contracts or any of that, but specifically that no matter how great the need, no matter who said what, nobody gets to use someone else's blood, organs, tissue without their continuous consent. It's not noble to compel someone to do it. That's not love, that's slavery.

#401

 

[fantome profane]

Creating a false construct to then destroy it isn't a correct application. Anybody can do that.

If you were being falsely accused but you had no money to defend yourself, should a lawyer be forced to give you some sort of representation?

The government should provide legal representation. In some situations lawyer might be required to represent me, but the lawyer still has a choice. They could leave the profession, join the circus, whatever.

There are situations where our government requires certain actions from us, but this topic is about bodily autonomy.

I think the kidney analogy is apt.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Creating a false construct to then destroy it isn't a correct application. Anybody can do that.

If you were being falsely accused but you had no money to defend yourself, should a lawyer be forced to give you some sort of representation?

What that poster did was make an actual valid comparison, in regards to bodily autonomy.
Your comparisons didn't work.

 

[SkepticThinker]

#401

Yeah, that doesn't address it.

You have a great day too.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well good for you. As for myself I would never tell a women in that situation what I think she “should” do. This decision had got to be one of the most difficult decisions of a person’s life.

I also do not believe in telling an woman what she should do. I firmly believe in free will and the right to choose.

And I certainly would not make the assumption that every woman who had an abortion was only thinking about herself.

Maybe or maybe not.

Ok, believe whatever you want. But we can’t go around making laws dictating how other people must live based on your metaphysical beliefs.

I certainly do not suggest that we make laws on that basis.

 

[Trailblazer]

Was that a "move the goal post?"

Hey Ken, you are not supposed to say that. That is a statement reserved for atheists.

 

[fantome profane]

Hmmm... my 84 year old mother-in-laws uses our bodies (which includes my organs) and everything we have to buy groceries, go to the doctor, massage her legs etc.

So, for you, just let her die because she doesn't have your consent to use your body for her needs. Got it.

This is not at all comparable to a mother and an unborn child.

You can decide how you take care of your mother-in-law. You have lots of options, you can hire people, get nurses, physiotherapist, friends and family etc. If you can’t afford there are charities that can help. If at some point you become unable to do what you are doing you the government will not step in and force you to. You have a choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

Considering possible complications is part of abortions.

That is moving the goal posts again. Complications are rare and if that is considered a possibility by the doctor then the abortion is deemed medically necessary and is even acceptable according to my religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey Ken, you are not supposed to say that. That is a statement reserved for atheists.

No, others can use it too. The problem is that so many people, Ken included, do not know how to use that phrase properly. He screwed up. Many think that those are just magical phrases without knowing how to apply them correctly.

 

[fantome profane]

I also do not believe in telling an woman what she should do. I firmly believe in free will and the right to choose.

Maybe or maybe not.

I certainly do not suggest that we make laws on that basis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is moving the goal posts again. Complications are rare and if that is considered a possibility by the doctor then the abortion is deemed medically necessary and is even acceptable according to my religion.

LOL! No, it is not. How is that moving the goalposts? Once again, it is not a magic phrase.

I am not saying that you cannot reason rationally, but people that cannot reason rationally almost never use logical fallacies correctly.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did you not tell me earlier that you weren't advocating for abstinence?
That appears to be the very thing you are doing here.

No, I said that if a woman does not want to take any chances then she should either be really careful with birth control or not have sex.

 

[Trailblazer]

"According to the most recent federal data, there are currently more than 400,000 children in foster care in the United States. They range in age from infants to 21 years old (in some states). The average age of a child in foster care is more than 8 years old, and there are slightly more boys than girls."
About the children.

How is that relevant to a newborn being adopted?

 

[Trailblazer]

Having an abortion is "taking responsibility" for the consequences of one's actions.

Only in your opinion.

People can and do become pregnant while using birth control, after having a vasectomy or a tubal ligation, etc.

The is very uncommon. Look at the statistics.

I'm sorry but I find your views on this to be archaic and completely unrealistic.

No need to be sorry. I do not care what you think about my religious beliefs.

Honestly it just sounds like you think a person who ends up with an unwanted pregnancy deserves some sort of punishment or something ... "she should have thought of that ..." Well, maybe she did. And maybe she used protection and got pregnant anyway. Or maybe she didn't. But I don't see how it's any of your business (or mine) anyway.

Maybe, maybe, maybe....
No, it is not any business of mine and I am not making it my business.
We are all only responsible for ourselves and our own choices.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I said that if a woman does not want to take any chances then she should either be really careful with birth control or not have sex.

Those methods do not always work. If a woman is on birth control is she free to get an abortion?

 

[Trailblazer]

That is just a religious belief. Why give it any more credence than a religious belief that claimed aborted fetuses go directly to heaven and the moral act is to get an abortion before they have a chance to go to hell?

It is just a religious belief. I give it more credence because it is MY religious belief.
Aborted fetuses do go directly to heaven, according to my beliefs, but that does not mean that they would have gone to hell if they were not aborted. I do not even believe in hell as a place we go to, I believe it is distance from God and heaven is nearness to God. The aborted fetus had an equal chance at heaven if it had lived.

 

[Trailblazer]

Those methods do not always work. If a woman is on birth control is she free to get an abortion?

Any woman is free to have an abortion if it is legal.