Vaginas have awesome secret sperm deflectors!
Options
Replies
-
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
I am curious exactly what rights does nature provide a human?0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
Rights are determined by the people. Always. Seriously, what you're really talking about is the Constitutionality of Roe v Wade. The Constitution, created and enforced by us, gives us rights. Nature has nothing to do with it.
I'm not going to bother having this conversation with you because it's well documented....everywhere.0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
So you think that a women should be forced to carry a fetus unless it may end her life. So does that mean even in the case of rape or severe emational trauma......
And as someone who is prochoice the difference between the mentally handicapped and a set of cells is that the mentally handicapped do not require a body to live off of. They're body functions without use of another. To believe that something that cannot survive outside of the womb has more rights than the person who it is surviving off of is illogical. Also as a male this is not your choice you are entitled to your opinion but you cannot fully understand what a female goes through during pregnancy and/or the choice about an abortion.0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
I am curious exactly what rights does nature provide a human?
Have you read the Declaration of Independence? The founders believed that equality, unalienable rights and government by consent, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inherent rights of man. Believing that they are derived from government means that they can be taken away and gives it too much power.0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
I am curious exactly what rights does nature provide a human?
Have you read the Declaration of Independence? The founders believed that equality, unalienable rights and government by consent, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inherent rights of man. Believing that they are derived from government means that they can be taken away and gives it too much power.
Yes I have read that government document written by the Continental Congress.
So my question still stands... what rights does nature provide a human?0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
So you think that a women should be forced to carry a fetus unless it may end her life. So does that mean even in the case of rape or severe emational trauma......
And as someone who is prochoice the difference between the mentally handicapped and a set of cells is that the mentally handicapped do not require a body to live off of. They're body functions without use of another. To believe that something that cannot survive outside of the womb has more rights than the person who it is surviving off of is illogical. Also as a male this is not your choice you are entitled to your opinion but you cannot fully understand what a female goes through during pregnancy and/or the choice about an abortion.
The mentally ill cannot survive on their own either. They need care to survive, or they will die. Babies once born need help to survive as well. This whole "the need the mother to survive disqualifies their right to live" argument isn't based on common sense. Before formula, they needed breast milk to survive outside of the womb. If a mother let her baby starve, would you not call that murder?
I'm guessing that premature babies are not human either.
As for rape, it's horrible, but that doesn't justify murdering a baby to help her heal emotionally. What crime did the baby commit?0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
I am curious exactly what rights does nature provide a human?
Have you read the Declaration of Independence? The founders believed that equality, unalienable rights and government by consent, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inherent rights of man. Believing that they are derived from government means that they can be taken away and gives it too much power.
Yes I have read that government document written by the Continental Congress.
So my question still stands... what rights does nature provide a human?
I already explained it as well as the DoI. It's pretty straight forward on where our liberties come from. I see you are trying to make the point of personal freedom and how it relates to women carrying babies. But until you can give be a reasonable definition of humanity, there is no reason to continue this conversation. Nice try though, you libs are not hard to figure out.0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
I am curious exactly what rights does nature provide a human?
Have you read the Declaration of Independence? The founders believed that equality, unalienable rights and government by consent, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inherent rights of man. Believing that they are derived from government means that they can be taken away and gives it too much power.
Yes I have read that government document written by the Continental Congress.
So my question still stands... what rights does nature provide a human?
I already explained it as well as the DoI. It's pretty straight forward on where our liberties come from. I see you are trying to make the point of personal freedom and how it relates to women carrying babies. But until you can give be a reasonable definition of humanity, there is no reason to continue this conversation. Nice try though, you libs are not hard to figure out.
So when a new lion takes over a pride and kills the cubs of the previous alpha, that lion is violating the cubs' rights?0 -
Angryguy, where did I say Ron Paul was perfect... Oh wait, I didn't. I'm pretty sure I said he had faults of his own. Secondly, when it's not just the police, but SWAT busting into my house because I am perceived as being a threat, then yes that is facist. Now back the abortion debate. What you or I think should make no difference on what another person is allowed to do (except for my aforementioned exemptions). While you or I may believe that life happens at conception, there are many that do not. If we are going to force them to live in a way that goes against what they believe, we might as well force everyone to be Christians as well.
You don't have to be Christian to be against abortion. We are not a do-whatever-you-want-society. I assume you're a libertarian which is ok with people doing things as long as it's not hurting another person. If you believe abortion is murder, then someone is being hurt by another person's actions, you wouldn't be a hypocrite for being against it.
It's not about forcing morality on someone, it's about protecting an innocent life.
I know you don't have to be a Christian to be against abortion. I know atheists and Hindus that are against it as well. And you say Libertarian like its a bad thing.
My point is that while you and I may believe that human life happens at conception and that it is murdering a life when abortion is choosen, not everyone believes that. Maybe it's a justification for actions. I don't know. But not everyone believes the same way about abortion... There are people that believe that it is strictly medical procedure. Nothing more, nothing less. But we can't force people to believe in and live in the same constructs as we do. That is where my reference to Christianity comes in. If we are forcing people to live to the moral code that we believe in, then we might as well force people to believe in a particular religion or work in a specific job not of their choosing. That's what I am saying. We cannot force people to live in the same moral construct as we do because not everyone believes our moral construct is the correct one, just like we don't believe in another moral construct.
Personally, I would rather keep it legal (so it can be regulated and kept safe for the women) and heavily educate women on what happens during an abortion and educate women (and men) on proper preventative measures (as only a small percentage of abortions is for health/rape/incest reasons). I also don't like the idea of ostracizing women that have been raped. While I know that women do keep the children that have resulted in rape, not all women are emotionally stable to do so. And honestly, what kind of life would that be for the child to be continually abused, because the woman faults the child for something it didn't even do. Then the child, in turn, rapes or murders others. Now while I would rather see the child put up for adoption... I would have deep empathy and sympathy for a woman who has to make this choice. And I would rather her be able to go to a trained medical professional rather than some back alley kook with a rusty coat hanger.... Or jump off of stairs.. Or shoot herself... All to get rid of the child. Criminalizing abortion is not going to make it go away any more than prohibition made alcohol go away.
Edited for clarification.0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
So you think that a women should be forced to carry a fetus unless it may end her life. So does that mean even in the case of rape or severe emational trauma......
And as someone who is prochoice the difference between the mentally handicapped and a set of cells is that the mentally handicapped do not require a body to live off of. They're body functions without use of another. To believe that something that cannot survive outside of the womb has more rights than the person who it is surviving off of is illogical. Also as a male this is not your choice you are entitled to your opinion but you cannot fully understand what a female goes through during pregnancy and/or the choice about an abortion.
The mentally ill cannot survive on their own either. They need care to survive, or they will die. Babies once born need help to survive as well. This whole "the need the mother to survive disqualifies their right to live" argument isn't based on common sense. Before formula, they needed breast milk to survive outside of the womb. If a mother let her baby starve, would you not call that murder?
I'm guessing that premature babies are not human either.
As for rape, it's horrible, but that doesn't justify murdering a baby to help her heal emotionally. What crime did the baby commit?
Not true many of they mentally Ill survive with their own apartments jobs and such..
Also I meant physically dependent .. the embryo cannot breathe or be feed through the stomach without the mother. A premature baby is not dependent on the mothers internal workings. Machines help it survive.
So you would force a women to carry a baby created from rape huh? Never mind the emational trauma that women may suffer being forced to carry something from someone who brutilized her in a way you cant even comprehend or having having to look at the child every day. If a women chooses to carry a baby after being raped that should be her choice. Do you even know the psychological burden you are putting on a woman and her family by telling her she has no choice.0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
I am curious exactly what rights does nature provide a human?
Have you read the Declaration of Independence? The founders believed that equality, unalienable rights and government by consent, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inherent rights of man. Believing that they are derived from government means that they can be taken away and gives it too much power.
Yes I have read that government document written by the Continental Congress.
So my question still stands... what rights does nature provide a human?
I already explained it as well as the DoI. It's pretty straight forward on where our liberties come from. I see you are trying to make the point of personal freedom and how it relates to women carrying babies. But until you can give be a reasonable definition of humanity, there is no reason to continue this conversation. Nice try though, you libs are not hard to figure out.
I am pretty sure you just made some liberals on this board spit up their drink with that one.0 -
Ok, this guy speaks for every conservative. So I guess every democrat believes the economy is doing fine, business owners didn't "build that", and Romney will put black people in chains. Fair enough.
To this group, yes. You disagree with a liberal you get called a conservative. You don't like Obama then you are assumed to watch Fox news. This group used to be pretty diverse on opinions. Anymore, it's the 'Liberals post topics discussing the insanity of conservatives" group.0 -
:drinker:I'm not going to bother having this conversation with you because it's well documented....everywhere.
...as well as conservative platitudes :yawn:0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
So you think that a women should be forced to carry a fetus unless it may end her life. So does that mean even in the case of rape or severe emational trauma......
And as someone who is prochoice the difference between the mentally handicapped and a set of cells is that the mentally handicapped do not require a body to live off of. They're body functions without use of another. To believe that something that cannot survive outside of the womb has more rights than the person who it is surviving off of is illogical. Also as a male this is not your choice you are entitled to your opinion but you cannot fully understand what a female goes through during pregnancy and/or the choice about an abortion.
The mentally ill cannot survive on their own either. They need care to survive, or they will die. Babies once born need help to survive as well. This whole "the need the mother to survive disqualifies their right to live" argument isn't based on common sense. Before formula, they needed breast milk to survive outside of the womb. If a mother let her baby starve, would you not call that murder?
I'm guessing that premature babies are not human either.
As for rape, it's horrible, but that doesn't justify murdering a baby to help her heal emotionally. What crime did the baby commit?
Not true many of they mentally Ill survive with their own apartments jobs and such..
Also I meant physically dependent .. the embryo cannot breathe or be feed through the stomach without the mother. A premature baby is not dependent on the mothers internal workings. Machines help it survive.
So you would force a women to carry a baby created from rape huh? Never mind the emational trauma that women may suffer being forced to carry something from someone who brutilized her in a way you cant even comprehend or having having to look at the child every day. If a women chooses to carry a baby after being raped that should be her choice. Do you even know the psychological burden you are putting on a woman and her family by telling her she has no choice.
Of course many mentally ill survive on there own, but there are many who cannot. My wife takes care of such people.
Why does it matter where the care comes from? Whether its the mother or caregiver, the person will die without that help. Your argument is based on survival as a condition of being considered a human. As I've said before, location, age and ability does not define what a human is. If it's not a developing human being, then why bother eating right and taking care of yourself when pregnant?
Do you see how selfish of an attitude that is concerning rape? "I'm hurting from a tragic event so I have the right to take another life to makes ME feel better". I know rape causes a lot of harm to women, it's despicable and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I've known a couple of women who've had that happen to them and I know it hurts. But that doesn't justify taking another human life. It's not about punishing the woman, it's about protecting a person. I find it reprehensible that people call pro-lifers all sorts of things just because they are trying to save a life. Somehow trying to save a life is cast in a bad light. Put it up for adoption, whether the kid gets taken or not is irrelevant, it at least has the chance to live and make a decent life for his/herself.0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
I am curious exactly what rights does nature provide a human?
Have you read the Declaration of Independence? The founders believed that equality, unalienable rights and government by consent, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inherent rights of man. Believing that they are derived from government means that they can be taken away and gives it too much power.
Yes I have read that government document written by the Continental Congress.
So my question still stands... what rights does nature provide a human?
I already explained it as well as the DoI. It's pretty straight forward on where our liberties come from. I see you are trying to make the point of personal freedom and how it relates to women carrying babies. But until you can give be a reasonable definition of humanity, there is no reason to continue this conversation. Nice try though, you libs are not hard to figure out.
I am pretty sure you just made some liberals on this board spit up their drink with that one.
well I saw through his intentions rather easily didn't I? Must be tough to base your beliefs on emotion rather than thought.0 -
This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.
Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?
Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.
Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.
Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.
I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.
The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.
You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.
The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.
Rights are determined by the people. Always. Seriously, what you're really talking about is the Constitutionality of Roe v Wade. The Constitution, created and enforced by us, gives us rights. Nature has nothing to do with it.
I'm not going to bother having this conversation with you because it's well documented....everywhere.
Well versed in our founding I see. Your civics teacher should have his teaching license revoked. The Constitution didn't grant us rights, it told the gov what right's it couldn't take away because, as I have said, those rights were granted by God and nature. What I said is in print, it's not too hard to understand.
In fact, the Bill of Rights wasn't originally going to be included into the the Constitution because some founders believed it wasn't necessary. They figured natural rights would always be understood. Thank God they changed their minds.0 -
Of course many mentally ill survive on there own, but there are many who cannot. My wife takes care of such people.
Why does it matter where the care comes from? Whether its the mother or caregiver, the person will die without that help. Your argument is based on survival as a condition of being considered a human. As I've said before, location, age and ability does not define what a human is. If it's not a developing human being, then why bother eating right and taking care of yourself when pregnant?
You're missing the point. Someone who is mentally ill or a newborn or someone who is developmentally disabled can be cared for by any number of people. If the mother is unable to feed a newborn, society can find an alternate care giver. If the parents of a developmentally disabled child die, the family can step in and care for the child.
An embryo or pre-viability fetus is unique in that only the mother can give it the things it needs to survive. The mother is a fully developed human being with full civil rights. The government cannot force her to perform the role that only she is able to perform. She cannot drop an embryo or pre-viability fetus off at a fire station, hospital, or other "safe baby zone" like she can once the baby is born.
Any time the government does try to force her to perform this role that she refuses, the result is back alley abortions and women throwing themselves down stairways. Laws against abortion don't stop abortions. They stop safe abortions.0 -
I already explained it as well as the DoI. It's pretty straight forward on where our liberties come from. I see you are trying to make the point of personal freedom and how it relates to women carrying babies. But until you can give be a reasonable definition of humanity, there is no reason to continue this conversation. Nice try though, you libs are not hard to figure out.
I am pretty sure you just made some liberals on this board spit up their drink with that one.
well I saw through his intentions rather easily didn't I? Must be tough to base your beliefs on emotion rather than thought.
That's a funny statement coming from someone who calls himself Angryguy.
But in any case, you missed Lour's point. The point was that we liberals would be shocked to learn that Lour is a liberal. He's not, and you've misunderstood him completely if you think he is.0 -
Of course many mentally ill survive on there own, but there are many who cannot. My wife takes care of such people.
Why does it matter where the care comes from? Whether its the mother or caregiver, the person will die without that help. Your argument is based on survival as a condition of being considered a human. As I've said before, location, age and ability does not define what a human is. If it's not a developing human being, then why bother eating right and taking care of yourself when pregnant?
You're missing the point. Someone who is mentally ill or a newborn or someone who is developmentally disabled can all be cared for by any number of people. If the mother is unable to feed a newborn, society can find an alternate care giver. If the parents of a developmentally disabled child die, the family can step in and care for the child.
An embryo or pre-viability fetus is unique in that only the mother can give it the things it needs to survive. The mother is a fully developed human being with full civil rights. The government cannot force her to perform the role that only she is able to perform. She cannot drop an embryo or pre-viability fetus off at a fire station, hospital, or other "safe baby zone" like she can once the baby is born.
Any time the government does try to force her to perform this role that she refuses, the result is back alley abortions and women throwing themselves down stairways. Laws against abortion don't stop abortions. They stop safe abortions.
Thank you for phasing t better than I did....0 -
*sigh* Why does it feel like angryguy77 is a troll? Or maybe he just deliberately misunderstands positions when they are offered up to him?
The difference in the care of a born individual and one in the womb is simple: ANYONE can take care of a born individual. A baby from birth can be given formula. It doesn't NEED breast milk to survive. A person who is mentally or physically unable to care for him or herself can be cared for by someone one else or via machines. ANYONE can feed, clothe, bathe, medicate, ect a person outside of the womb no matter what the age of that person (newborn to death.)
Fetus's do not have that option. A fetus can only survive through ONE person. The mother. It's host. It is feeding off of it's mother like a parasite. I takes HER nutrients and oxygen, and uses her body to dispose of it's waste and by-products. NO ONE except the mother can provide those nutrients and oxygen. No single person or machine can provide the care for a fetus that can't survive outside of a woman's womb.
There is a law or statute that states that NO person shall be forced to provide blood, bone marrow, or other organs to anyone else, even to save a persons life. By refusing women an abortion you are are breaking that. You are FORCING them to provide blood and life saving bodily fluids to another person, the fetus.Put it up for adoption, whether the kid gets taken or not is irrelevant, it at least has the chance to live and make a decent life for his/herself.
I have also have to take exception to what you said here. Have you ever met a person, especially a child, who has grown up in the foster care system because no one wanted them?0
