Interesting by fact on abortions

[Darth]

If you let a baby live on its own, it would die.

Your standard falls short

If it only affected one other person's body I would agree with you.

Since there are 2 people involved (at least for late stage abortions, I don't agree that a blastocyst or embryo is a person, but at 8 months it sure is) don't they both get a say ?

It's one or the other.

It's either not a person (my view) and in no way murder.

OR

It IS a person and has no right to the body of another. A baby does not have a right to the body of it's mother. If a child needed a heart transplant from the mother that would kill her it would be the same situation.

 

[spat]

It's one or the other.

It's either not a person (my view) and in no way murder.

OR

It IS a person and has no right to the body of another. A baby does not have a right to the body of it's mother. If a child needed a heart transplant from the mother that would kill her it would be the same situation.

Once it's born it has the right to demand the mother feed and shelter it.

She can pass that obligation off to someone else of course, but that doesn't eliminate it.

I don't think many people would object to replacing abortion with delivery on demand, as long as every attempt was made to keep the baby alive.

 

[Darth]

Once it's born it has the right to demand the mother feed and shelter it.

She can pass that obligation off to someone else of course, but that doesn't eliminate it.

I don't think many people would object to replacing abortion with delivery on demand, as long as every attempt was made to keep the baby alive.

Feed and shelter != bodily autonomy.

I would object to delivery on demand if that eliminated any other options the pregnant woman had.

 

[holdover]

It's one or the other.

It's either not a person (my view) and in no way murder.

OR

It IS a person and has no right to the body of another. A baby does not have a right to the body of it's mother. If a child needed a heart transplant from the mother that would kill her it would be the same situation.

Which is the greater good being served?

The life of a person at the expense of someone's rights or the rights of a person at the expense of someone's life ?

Which is held as more valuable?
Rights or life?

I believe that life itself, supersedes rights. In this context. For me,the value of life outweighs the value of anothers rights .

The greater evil is inflicted more upon the one who suffers death than the one who has been denied a percieved right to kill. One Who has no right to kill to begin with.

The argument that it is Not life, is no longer valid. It is recognized as a different stage of human life.if you destroy the acorn do you destroy the tree,?in effect, you do. There can be no tree without it.

 

[freddy]

You didn't. It's just that you were @Snappo when it was active.

Are you on this forum just to talk about abortion?

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but you can go fuck yourself!







( I still love you man!)

 

[freddy]

(we cannot) dictate others anatomical choices, whether I agree with them or not

Exactly. But most here cannot comprehend it.

 

[Darth]

Which is the greater good being served?

The life of a person at the expense of someone's rights or the rights of a person at the expense of someone's life ?

Which is held as more valuable?
Rights or life?

I believe that life itself, supersedes rights. In this context. For me,the value of life outweighs the value of anothers rights .

The greater evil is inflicted more upon the one who suffers death than the one who has been denied a percieved right to kill. One Who has no right to kill to begin with.

The argument that it is Not life, is no longer valid. It is recognized as a different stage of human life.if you destroy the acorn do you destroy the tree,?in effect, you do. There can be no tree without it.

As previously discussed with the "life on mars" situation, I'm well aware that it is life.

So is the grass you chop in your front lawn.

it is NOT, however, a person. Therefor it has no human rights.

 

[holdover]

This is the grey area where it becomes an interpretation of facts, you see it as no more life than grass or bugs, where I assign value to it as the beginning of human life.

I suppose I could make a case for it ,but it would seem futile at this point because it would be based on the value of that life. Since you place no value on it, we can't go any further than that.

I see it as an early stage of human life with human DNA already set, that person /thing has already been decided .

I think we went as far as we could go with the facts, the rest is just an interpretation, and personal values

 

[Darth]

This is the grey area where it becomes an interpretation of facts, you see it as no more life than grass or bugs, where I assign value to it as the beginning of human life.

I suppose I could make a case for it ,but it would seem futile at this point because it would be based on the value of that life. Since you place no value on it, we can't go any further than that.

I see it as an early stage of human life with human DNA already set, that person /thing has already been decided .

I think we went as far as we could go with the facts, the rest is just an interpretation, and personal values

But the thing is, we can look at both options considering both views.

Either the life is not human, my view, and it is therefor not murder.

Or

The life is human, your view, and has no right to the body of another human.

 

[holdover]

That's absurd. It's nature. To say that is to say nothing has a right to be born. Thats how nature functions. My view is that the mother has no right to inflict death on the unborn. (circumstances pending)

 

[freddy]

i read this and was very surprised by the number. It's a price of data we should use against the liberals. Also keep in mind only 49/50 states reported. Basically 1/5 kids born are aborted and there is nearly 700,000 abortions per year. Crazy.

Abortion | Data and Statistics | Reproductive Health | CDC

"...1.3% [of abortions] were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation."​

 

[freddy]

That's absurd. It's nature. To say that is to say nothing has a right to be born. Thats how nature functions. My view is that the mother has no right to inflict death on the unborn. (circumstances pending)

Death before birth? Is that the new math?

 

[holdover]

Yes. It is. Life begins before birth, at least that's what the department of human services is now advocating, welcome to the new reality

 

[SomeSoldier]

As previously discussed with the "life on mars" situation, I'm well aware that it is life.

So is the grass you chop in your front lawn.

it is NOT, however, a person. Therefor it has no human rights.

Yes it does based on the preamble in the constitution.

 

[Darth]

Yes it does based on the preamble in the constitution.

The constitution...which applies to us citizens?

I.e. not blades of grass?

 

[Airborneguy]

No right to the body? There’s no “rights” involved in purely scientific, natural processes. Too bad woman, that’s how you were born. Period.

 

[SomeSoldier]

The constitution...which applies to us citizens?

I.e. not blades of grass?

Who said anything about grass. You are grasping at straws.

 

[freddy]

Yes. It is. Life begins before birth, at least that's what the department of human services is now advocating, welcome to the new reality

I will agree on this 'new reality' when abortion is outlawed. Right now reality is abortion = legal.

You know, 1 out of 5 babies born are in fact aborted. I read that on the internets!

 

[freddy]

No right to the body? There’s no “rights” involved in purely scientific, natural processes. Too bad woman, that’s how you were born. Period.

Now that's a keeper right there folks!

 

[freddy]

Yes it does based on the preamble in the constitution.

Would you explain what you mean please?

 

[Darth]

Who said anything about grass. You are grasping at straws.

Making a statement of "grasping at straws" has much more vigor if the person making the statement has taken time to actually read the argument.

As you clearly didn't, I won't even ask that you scroll up 10 posts, I'll go ahead and post it again:

As previously discussed with the "life on mars" situation, I'm well aware that it is life.

So is the grass you chop in your front lawn.

it is NOT, however, a person. Therefor it has no human rights.

So I did.

 

[Darth]

That's absurd. It's nature. To say that is to say nothing has a right to be born. Thats how nature functions. My view is that the mother has no right to inflict death on the unborn. (circumstances pending)

Except no such "right to be born" exists, and it's a nonsensical position.

I just had a hard boiled egg. There I go again denying that life it's "right to be born."

What?

 

[SomeSoldier]

Making a statement of "grasping at straws" has much more vigor if the person making the statement has taken time to actually read the argument.

As you clearly didn't, I won't even ask that you scroll up 10 posts, I'll go ahead and post it again:



So I did.

Actually I did but find it so assinine that I choose to not entertain the idea.

The baby, embrio, fetus, whatever stage didnt ask to be made. Two people made a choice, that baby, fetus, will develope into a person. If you terminate it, you ended a life period. It will not grow up into an adult as it would have. So as i have stated before the constitution protects your "Posterity", your future children. Theirfor it protects everything your child was before, including all stages of life.

Also, the constitution does not just protect US citizens, it protects anyone on US soil.

 

[Darth]

Actually I did but find it so assinine that I choose to not entertain the idea.

The baby, embrio, fetus, whatever stage didnt ask to be made. Two people made a choice, that baby, fetus, will develope into a person. If you terminate it, you ended a life period. It will not grow up into an adult as it would have. So as i have stated before the constitution protects your "Posterity", your future children. Theirfor it protects everything your child was before, including all stages of life.

We end life all the time. What is your point? I will admit that the stretch to "posterity" one is a stretch that even I have not seen before, quickly made null when you realize we don't jail people that get vas/hysterectomies, even though that "denies your future children" by your strange off the wall view of the preamble.

Also, the constitution does not just protect US citizens, it protects anyone on US soil.

That's a can of worms to open up on a gun forum given the current climate on immigration, but no, no the constitution does not apply to everyone on US soil. Hell, it doesn't even apply to all US citizens on US soil...

 

[spat]

Feed and shelter != bodily autonomy.

I would object to delivery on demand if that eliminated any other options the pregnant woman had.

By "other options" you mean murdering a baby ?

There are a fair number of women who would like that option after the birth too, should we accomodate them as well ?

 

[Darth]

By "other options" you mean murdering a baby ?

There are a fair number of women who would like that option after the birth too, should we accomodate them as well ?

No, I mean an abortion.

 

[spat]

No, I mean an abortion.

Would you still say that if you believed the unborn was a separate human being at say 8 months ?

I really think this discussion is about when a separate human life begins, and all the talk about rights is irrelevant.

Certainly nobody who believes that it's not a human before birth cares one bit about what the woman does with her body. I wonder if there are many people at all out there who think its a human but she should be able to kill it anyway ?

 

[Defilade]

REDRUM!

 

[Darth]

Would you still say that if you believed the unborn was a separate human being at say 8 months ?

"Would you still say that water was wet if it was dry?"

 

[SomeSoldier]

We end life all the time. What is your point? I will admit that the stretch to "posterity" one is a stretch that even I have not seen before, quickly made null when you realize we don't jail people that get vas/hysterectomies, even though that "denies your future children" by your strange off the wall view of the preamble.



That's a can of worms to open up on a gun forum given the current climate on immigration, but no, no the constitution does not apply to everyone on US soil. Hell, it doesn't even apply to all US citizens on US soil...

Right we dont because if they didn't have a hysto they would die, just like I conceed that if a mother chooses to abort to save her own life, that is a legitament reason. To abort because you got drunk amd failed to use a condom is not a legitament reason.



And yes everyone on US soil is already protected. Right to free speech, right to an attorny, fair trial, humane treatment.