Discussion in 'Abortion' started by logical1, May 18, 2019.
Some, I'm told, even like it.
I'm not. I object to the "war on drugs." Do I get my money back?
Oh, c'mon--they celebrate pro-choice legislation as a women's rights win.
Prove me wrong.....waiting. (very silly)
You are justifying forcing women to carry their rapists child to term because you say you know the will of God on the matter - but can provide absolutely no proof what the will of God is for each individual.
So we come back to it being YOUR will to control women’s lives as being your only argument.
I also have sympathy for your argument that the war on drugs has been, in large part, a waste of your taxpayer dollars. No, you will not get your money back. That's why taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used to pay for things like abortions, because NO, you won't be getting a refund if it turns out to be a crappy idea, and a waste of taxpayer money.
They're celebrating a woman's rights win that involves abortion. Sugarcoat it all you want, but they're celebrating abortions.
"Safe, legal, and rare" has morphed into celebrations of abortion. It's a bad and ghoulish look for the leftists.
I was being facetious, of course, and I won't be getting relief from having to pay my share of the $50b we spend every year--many, many times more than is spent on abortion, public and private. We all have our moral objections to government activities. Why should pro-lifers, many of who support the "war on drugs," get special treatment?
And pro-lifers celebrate "baby"-saving at the expense of a woman's right to control her reproduction. Is it fair to accuse pro-lifers of misogyny?
And pro-lifers come off as hating women in another telling.
Ghouls? Misogynists? Can anyone take a position on abortion without being vilified by opponents?
Well, I suppose this is the pitfall if we rely on the privacy argument too much, but the reason it's not bad and ghoulish is because a fetus before consciousness is not a person, and so deserves no rights or sympathy.
For the mother, it's just healthcare. So the question of government funding is whether the government should pay for healthcare. Since the enjoyment of any rights requires health, and these days healthcare is effective, there is a right to healthcare and the government protects such rights.
The war on drugs is more an issue of making a huge deal out of a victimless crime, and an example of the solution creating new problems without actually addressing original problem. It's deeply harmful just like any pointless war. If illegal, abortion would also be a victimless crime, since pre-conscious fetuses are not persons.
No here is what we come back to....Daniel. You seem to think all the women that go to planned parenthood are victims of abortion. You say that in order to justify the killing of 99% who are just the results of senses being pleasured. Personally I would address that 1% a little differently. As we have learned before, you use the exception to try and establish the rule.
Only 20% of all rapes are reported. That leaves you with about 5% of abortions being preformed for women who through
no fault of their own are pregnant. And you can't know which ones they are unless you FORCE those women to report the crime and
go through the horrific ordeal of a rape trail and invasive pelvic exam.
I documented crime scenes for 9 years. I've been to a number of rape trails. I've seen what they put the woman through on the witness stand.
It ain't pretty.
Forcing women to divulge that information is paramount to an additional rape.
So given that information - you going to be the one to force a raped woman to prove she was raped in order to rid herself of the rapist's fetus?
Again you make the exception the rule.There are many women I know that would seek prosecution if raped and be VERY diligent about it. So your 5% is far less than that. Question is....at what stage does it become rape? Can a women engage in heavy petting, remove her clothes and then at the last minute decide no intercourse? Is that rape? Some say it is.....but it WOULD be hard to prove. It just seems a lot of shame could be involved. However, there are other special circumstances such as incest and I acknowledge they are different and should be reviewed as "special circumstances", however, if they are going to punish the unborn....it should be done as soon as conception is discovered.
I want to know how you figure 20% of all rapes are unreported? Why not say 50% of all rapes are unreported? Who would know? Are we just supposed to take some experts word ? If they knew.....it would be reported.
I don't get the whole raped or not raped argument. Either the fetus is a person or it's not. Being raped is not an excuse to murder an innocent 3rd party. Fortunately, an early fetus has no mind and is not a person. This is really the central issue and everything else except saving the life of the mother is just emotion and noise. Edit: Well, okay, the whole privacy issue does add a practical problem to this simplification, but in terms of whether an abortion is "wrong" or not, it comes down to what I said.
It is wrong. However, it wouldn't be better to let the "blood lusts" have their way with perhaps 1% and save the rest? I do agree with you. Murder is murder, but the least we can do is call them out on another lie. Am I wrong?
You feel that way because you will never, ever get pregnant from being raped. You are the equivalent of a back-seat driver ... who isn’t even in the car and will never drive.
I didn’t say 20% go unreported, I said only about 20% of rapes ARE reported. That’s been pretty standard numbers since I worked documenting crime scenes.
Want some proof? Look at the number of women who finally came forward in the Weinstein trail, and other high profile cases like the Olympic Doctor. Women who were afraid. It would damage their careers or there reputation.
Nope, EVERY woman who seeks an abortion must be treated as a potential rape victim.
This is just emotion. 99% of abortions are morally neutral. But what I said is just morality 101. It doesn't matter how traumatized somebody is - it doesn't justify killing an innocent person. They should get the abortion before the 20th week.
We agree that rape doesn't justify the murder of a person. I think where we disagree is when it starts being a person.
Less than 1% of abortions are performed after the 20th week anyway and most of those are for medical reasons.
Who would want to rape a women just because she wants to have an abortion? I fail to see the potential there.
I have stated that when sperm and egg unite a new and unique DNA is formed. That is when life begins.
Are you anti-abortion?
I’m anti anti-choice.
I asked about the abortion itself not what someone else is going to do. Are you anti-abortion?
I'm a man, so it always going to have be about what someone else is going to do - do try and keep up.
Are you anti murder then?.....or is that about what someone else is going to do......try and keep up!
We're discussing abortion - not murder. Do try and keep up.
Separate names with a comma.