I'm not discussing potential humans. The thousands of crack babies in iCUs right now are actual humans. They have actual injuries. If you could talk to one of these children once they have grown, what would you say to them about their lifelong injuries? Would you tell them not to blame anyone for their condition? They suffer from natural causes? That's what you would have to tell them, because you know that if any blame for their condition is attributed to the actions of another human, the injured can hold them to account. That's the way a civilized society works: if you find yourself with an injury that you can attribute to the actions of another person, business, or government, you have the right to seek justice for your injury. I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out any situation in society in which this is not true. EXCEPT for babies born addicted. According to the pro choice philosophy, these children have no right to justice for their injuries. Keep trying to deflect to skin cells, nothingness, etc. I'm talking about justice for real people, and hundreds of thousands of them over the decades. Go ahead and find one of these crack babies when they are old enough to discuss their injuries. I know many. And I can tell you that they blame their mothers for their actions. Ofc most have forgiven her. But I guarantee that you aren't going to be successful in convincing them that they had no rights to prevent their mother from doing that. People have rights in the womb against at LEAST some actions, and I think you know it and are afraid to admit it due to the consequences for the abortion debate.
Omg the rights of one human conflict with the rights of another! Amazing, I have never encountered this before in our law, so therefore my judgment must automatically be one side has no rights. Right? Come on, pointing out that rights conflict doesn't mean anything. That's the way a society works.
Fetuses are de facto potentianl humans. If you stop crack-mothers from having abortions, we will see even more crack-babies, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Yes, obviously the mother is to blame for their injuries and condition, but so what? This is, as I said, a case for abortion rather than against it. Yes. Pro Choicers are very weak on philosophy. I am not Pro Choice, I am Pro Abortion. Then you are in the wrong sub, m8. Emotional hyperbole that has nothing to do with the topic in question. Yes, if one chooses to carry out an pregnancy, it is their responsibility to ensure the best possible birth, but we are talking about abortions here which are about not carrying out a pregnancy.
Again, a baby in the ICU is not a fetus; they are a person with injuries. What if I told you I was a crack baby? That's your response to my claim that another person seriously injured me? So what? Your solution for me is in a perfect world my mom should have aborted me? I don't get your point here; I'd like to confirm: you believe a baby born addicted A) has no injuries, or B) should not blame the person responsible for them? No it is most definitely NOT their responsibility to ensure the best possible birth according to what you have said. There can be no responsibility without accountability. And according to your posts, there can be no accountability if they don't ensure a good birth as they have ZERO responsibility to act or not act in regard to a non person. So what you said here makes no sense.
There aren't any..... I hardly need your permission.. Yes, the term "Pro-Choice" refers to the abortion issue....attempting to make it more than that is " intellectually disingenuous" (without the intellect part). No, it isn't...see, different issues are different...that's why we call them "different' issues.. ODD how you feel the need to answer for another poster but can't seem to answer posts directed at you
FoxHastings said: ↑ That's rather broad....do you want a fetus to have the right to use another's body to sustain their life? NO one else has that right. Do you want fetuses to have the right to harm another without their consent? NO one else has that right. A fetus can, and does, harm the women it's in but it isn't A (noun) human being. YOU seem to want the fetus to be able to """ harm another human, and not be held to account both morally and legally"""" So you couldn't answer my questions...that's OK, NO Anti-Choicer ever has
If the woman invited the fetus in, yes it has a right to lnot be harmed by her or anyone else, even with her consent. The unborn person has a right to not be forcefully addicted to drugs. To not have their DNA manipulated. To not be physically beaten. And if they have a right to these, they most certainly have the right to not be killed.
FoxHastings said: ↑ That's rather broad....do you want a fetus to have the right to use another's body to sustain their life? NO one else has that right. Do you want fetuses to have the right to harm another without their consent? NO one else has that right. A fetus can, and does, harm the women it's in but it isn't A (noun) human being. YOU seem to want the fetus to be able to """ harm another human, and not be held to account both morally and legally"""" So you couldn't answer my questions...that's OK, NO Anti-Choicer ever has So do you contend that if a person invites another person into their house the invited person has every right to beat the home owner, rape them, steal from them, harm them BECAUSE THEY WERE INVITED IN....and the home owner loses all right to defend themselves ???!!!!!!!!! Women do NOT "invite" a fetus into themselves...that's silly hyperbole.. No, they have no rights, they do have protections but no rights. Do you want a fetus to have the right to use another's body to sustain their life? NO one else has that right. Do you want fetuses to have the right to harm another without their consent? NO one else has that right. If a woman does not consent to being harmed by pregnancy she has the right to end it. BTW, consent to one act (sex) is NOT consent to any other act (becoming pregnant)
Interesting. I put this question to the board. Does anyone know of a MALE birth control pill; that is a pill that would make a males semen infertile? If you do please mention it here. Otherwise, I'll get right on it.
The woman had sex, she didn't "invite" anything into her body. Saying she did is like saying she "invites" in germs that cause food poisoning by eating something contaminated or germs that cause any disease by simply living. Bullshit. A fetus that a woman didn't plan on is a ****** wart, a growth on your body that you don't want, and nothing ****** more. A fetus has no rights because it's not a person, it's a growth, and it stays that until it comes out and starts crying. If you give this growth rights you are actually taking rights from the mother and that's the real objective. You want to enslave women to the right-wing agenda using their own biology as a proxy WHY are the anti-reproductive freedom types so interested in FORCING people who obviously don't want children to have them anyway? I mean WTF, I thought we had a population problem; don't we have enough neurotic people raised by parents who shouldn't have had them? I was a teacher for several years, I saw how many resources we had to use on unhappy children whose parents either didn't want or weren't able to deal with them. It breaks your heart because it's not the children's fault nor really the parents. It's societies for telling people they shouldn't have abortions in many cases. Children are a great gift, they should be welcomed and loved and most importantly EXPECTED AND PLANNED FOR. They should NOT be a surprise unless you WANTED one
Again, tens of thousands of babies per year in the ICU disagree that they were warts when the actions that resulted in their condition were performed. Since you seem to know my intentions, tell me what purpose would I have in "enslaving" women? I take great offense to this comment. I'm so sick of hearing your side spout this line as if you all read the same talking points. You want to know my motivations for taking this angle on abortion? I fell on hard times a few years ago and became homeless. The only people willing to let me stay on couches basements etc were drug addicts. I lived in abandoned houses, traphouses, and meth/crackhouses in the hood for over 2 years. I met and/or saw countless women doing hard drugs while pregnant. I met a few people who were born addicted. I developed a deep anger that all of these children were suffering and no one was willing to do anything about it. I became convinced that these kids HAVE A RIGHT to not have this done to them. I've also deduced the primary reason that no one is doing anything about this suffering. And in a nutshell, it's the expanding notion that all she has inside her is a wart that she bears ZERO responsibility for until birth. Don't get me wrong. I'm aware of the suffering that illegal abortion entails. The loss of rights. The coathanger abortions. Increased population. I simply think that the harms that legal abortion comes with are greater, especially once governments start using genetic manipulation . It's not a religious or right wing argument (they dismiss your concerns, I acknowledge them); it's a cost/benefit analysis.
If the mother does not positively WANT the child for ANY reason, she should have an abortion, period. I have had to deal with several children who were born to families that did pretty clearly did not want them and unwanted children are seldom happy. We have this religious/television mythology that says big families are difficult but happy for being big, Bullshit. The exceptions are the ones that get on television, (and seldom exist in actual fact anyway,) The rules are the ones we have to deal with all their lives The cost of having an abortion is far, FAR less than the cost of raising a child and in the majority of cases, a child that was going to be aborted will be raised mainly at State expense. Cost/benefit says abortions are the best solutions to a whole plethora of problems.
There's no such thing as a "crack baby". That was a myth. There are babies affected by fetal alcohol syndrome, and babies born addicted to opioids.
I just used the term because there is no other shorthand way to identify them; I've never heard the term opioid baby. My point stands. You can be harmed in the womb and suffer after birth. And the people doing the harming are completely unaccountable. I know that people have rights against this that are yet to be introduced into law.
Is it just me or is the reality that without kazenatsu starting inflammatory threads every second night this particular forum would be deader than disco?
Yup, and that's because the side opposing women having rights has no good argument to take away those rights.....it's a good sign .
I think you know my argument is rock solid and uses logic, not religion. And it all can be proven with 1 question that every prochoicer I've ever asked dishonestly refuses to answer: Is it possible for a human being to harm another human being before being born, and the injuries be present after birth?
I answered this at least a hundred times... NO. There is NO "human being" before birth. There is a fetus. It is HUMAN (adjective) it is NOT A human being(noun). Is it possible to harm it? Of course...nature does it a lot...hence kids born with birth defects. A fetus doesn't have rights because any rights would interfere with the rights of the woman it's in. AND Pro-Choice , unlike Anti-Choicers, believe women should have the same rights everyone else has... """"""the side opposing women having rights has no good argument to take away those rights""
NO anti-Choicer has EVER answered the question: What rights do you want the fetus to have that do not interfere in the rights of the woman it's in...?
That's not an answer. It's a simple question. I'll rephrase since you don't like the terminology: Is it possible for one human being to harm another before the other is born, and the injury be present after birth?
Answered right here....just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not correct: FoxHastings said: ↑ I answered this at least a hundred times... NO. There is NO "human being" before birth. There is a fetus. It is HUMAN (adjective) it is NOT A human being(noun). Is it possible to harm it? Of course...nature does it a lot...hence kids born with birth defects. A fetus doesn't have rights because any rights would interfere with the rights of the woman it's in. AND Pro-Choice , unlike Anti-Choicers, believe women should have the same rights everyone else has...
FoxHastings said: ↑ NO anti-Choicer has EVER answered the question: What rights do you want the fetus to have that do not interfere in the rights of the woman it's in...? LOL, meaning you can't answer it either ! LOL
The fact remains that there are live humans with injuries present that occurred while they were in the womb. Your position is that they aren't human? Prochoicers have no philosophical framework that would enable them to hold the perpetrators of the above injuries accountable. Not only legally but morally. Prochoicers can't even chastise a mother who forced her baby to spend the first couple of months of their lives in the ICU suffering. It's an absolutely horrid situation to observe, another person purposely caused the suffering, you know with certainty who that person is, and you can't even frown at the perpetrator without being morally wrong yourself because according to your philosophy their disgusting actions were perpetrated on a "nonperson". There can be no obligation whatsoever to act or not act toward a "nonperson" under the pro choice philosophy. What this means is you can't judge a person's actions toward a fetus, no matter how heinous or no matter the amount of suffering the offended has to live with. Imo, this lack of empathy for this kind of human suffering exposes a serious flaw in the pro choice logic.
