Alabama: the Woman, her Womb, and the Politicians

No, they'd need only one on that corner as it's obviously sparsely populated ...couldn't you figure that out?


I have the right definition of punishment, having the right to your own body taken away.

 

Ya, I was wondering when you were going to start....you haven't yet.

When are you going to discuss the topic?




( In the end, eventually, no matter how high minded they try to sound they will one day devolve to some form of " the B /slut should've kept her legs together!!"....it ALWAYS happens....sooner or later...always )
.

And it was post 115.. .not 122...

 

I've read the research. I would tend to agree that a viable fetus would be one that could survive on its own outside the womb, and that we would then begin calling that fetus a "human being." So there is quite a gulf between the Alabama position and say the recent ruling in Virginia (and espoused by some elected officials) that a later term fetus which survived the abortion process and is outside the womb could still be ethically and legally terminated.

 

Wow, just wow. And you want to force this 11 year old to have her Uncle's baby because you believe she wanted him to rape her.

You and your thought process is why I thank GOD that abortion is legal.

 

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said there'd be one on every corner. You did not qualify your assertion as you are now attempting to. So you are retracting your initial position. Hence, I was correct when I classified your remark as hyperbole.

At some point the right to your own body ends and the right to another's begins. This usually occurs when your actions will have a harmful effect on another. So, in that case it is, as I already stated, not a punishment.

More hyperbole.

 

Isn’t palliative care legal?

 

We had a thread on the Argentinian case of an 11 year old raped by the foster grandfather who was denied a termination even though she stated she “wanted the thing the old man put inside her taken out” was hospitalised, fed steroids to mature the lungs of the foetus then and only when she developed a life threatening illness was she given a Caesarian = the baby was not expected to live. It was the reaction of the so called pro choice members which was most telling. One has revealed themselves and thier beliefs. The other posted that “if she had been a fatty he doubted the grandfather would have wanted to have sex with her”.

Bloody disgusting

 

Absolutely disgusting. And yet they want us all to believe they actually care for Children.

 

OH LOOK! You made a POINT!

Totally unrelated to the topic and/or abortion but .

I concede...some corners might only have one clinic...feel better now?

As in pregnancy. The gestation of a fetus has a harmful effect on women. A fetus has no rights but even if it did it has no right to harm another or use another to sustain it's life.

Losing the right to one's own body ( banning abortion) is punishment.

 

When they start blaming 11 year old girls for being pregnant then they lose all credibility

 

We'll have that solved when they invent a morning after pill. Until then it will probably be a good idea to stick with science ---- unique humans have unique DNA signatures. Killing a fetus at that point can no longer be considered a bruise.

I think people got energized on the issue when amoral excuses for human beings decided that it should be legal to chase a baby around the abortion clinic with a machete in the event it survives an abortion attempt. The day that murder of a baby outside the womb is called "Womens Healthcare" is the day we've truly lost our way as a society ,,, even more so than having multiple choice gender identification.

 

Having DNA does NOT give something rights....a dog has DNA, do they have the same rights as humans?

 

Would it be too much trouble to ask you to observe conventional quoting practices? I'd like to respond to your posts, but the way they end up formatted on the other end makes it very difficult to continue the logical flow of the conversation. Thank you.

Actions have consequences. One of the potential consequences to sexual intercourse is pregnancy. At some point during that pregnancy, the collection of fertilized cells begins to take on a form we would recognize as "a person." This form eventually can move on its own inside the womb, and can after a time survive on its own outside the womb, even if removed from the womb prior to the end of the natural gestation period. At some point in human history, we came to agree that killing another human being (outside of self defense) is unethical/immoral or both. So in the case of a later term abortion, which party is being punished? The one who consented to engage in sexual intercourse, and as such agreed to accept the consequences? Or the party who had no ability to even consent and is 100% innocent and absolved from all consequences thereto?

Fallacy, ad hominem. Also what you claim you can or cannot comprehend is irrelevant to the topic.

I certainly hope you are not trying to claim that is my argument.

I think you are being a little pedantic. Let me rephrase: As civilized human beings we generally do not believe killing of other human beings (other than in self defense or defense of another) is good, ethical, or moral. And in fact we believe this to such a degree that as societies we will impose penalties for doing so (such as incarceration, removal of liberties, even forfeiture of life).

No dispute. We agree.

No dispute. We agree.

 

Dear lord but there are some disturbing imaginations out there. But this is what it has come to. The Republican Party in the USA has been milking the abortion question for years now, doing little qbout but milking it. Truth be told they do not want legislation because that would undermine a lucrative platform. However to get traction with it they have to build bigger and bigger lies.

 

"unique humans have unique DNA signatures"

Another victim of Common Corpse.

At least demonstrate the minimum courtesy of refraining from misquoting other posters. I know self control is tough for a growing number of people these days, but give it a shot --- OK?

 

Please explain how lobbing fallacies is better than making logical arguments in a debate as you have just stated above. Thank you.

We can discuss the topic when you can stop lobbing fallacies.

If you are trying to attribute that message to me, I'd highly recommend finding a citation. And I mean like right now.

 

I hope he was just trolling. But something tells me that poster actually believes that an 11 year old girl wanted to be raped by her Uncle and carry his baby.

Horrifyingly disgusting.

 

I was quite clear in what I said.

You want to mock it...mock it.

But if you are asking me to mock it with you...go pound sand.

The *******s on the extreme no-abortion position start at...no abortion after the egg is fertilized.

The only intelligent position to take is...abortion at any time.

If you meet the *******s in the middle at the start...you get the nonsense going on in Alabama...and other backwater places.

So if you are truly interested in my position...read my words. There is no need to explain anything if you do.

 

Not sure I understand your point. Please elaborate. Thank you.

 

Where the F do you all come up with this ****??

Chasing a baby around with a Machete??

And you want to be taken seriously? OMFG

 

Well I disagree with your position. I believe killing a baby a minute before it pokes its head out of the fun tunnel is unethical. At some point prior to that, when it more resembles a blob of goo, doesn't have eyes, lungs, etc., yeah sure suck that **** right out. So I disagree with your assertion that puncturing the skull of a living human one minute prior to birth is "the only intelligent position." In fact I'll go as far as saying it is not remotely intelligent at all.

 

Dude - we as a society have let non-viable babies pass naturally since the dawn of time. No law has changed that. Laws did not change hospital's and Doctor's Best Practices policies - which have always been to let terminal and non-viable babies die a natural death after leaving the womb. The fact that you see all doctors waiting around with chainsaws and hockey masks is a failing in your psyche, not theirs.

 

Despite a proposal that would require that only one doctor make the determination that the pregnancy "threatens the woman's life or health", under current Virginia law, abortions during the third trimester require a determination by a doctor and two consulting physicians that continuing the pregnancy would likely result in the woman's death or "substantially and irremediably" impair her mental or physical health.

That has not changed.

 

Consent to one act is NOT consent to any other act.

Consent to sex is not consent to get pregnant.

Yes, a consequence of intercourse could be pregnancy but NO one has an obligation to accept that consequence.



Being forced to gestate is punishment. Being forced to gestate means one has had the right to their own body taken away...and they didn't even commit a crime!

You: ""we came to agree that killing another human being (outside of self defense) is unethical/immoral or both""

Moved the goal posts …. who is this "we"...and whether "we" find something unethical/immoral doesn't mean "we" can take away the rights of others.

There's that "Ad hominem, ad hominem to scream when I have nothing else"...


I never referred to that in corresponding with you.

No, I was right on...you have now changed your wording.

Doesn't change the fact that abortion isn't murder and banning abortion is taking away women's right to their own bodies.

IF you agree then you must also agree abortion should remain legal. A fetus can't have more rights than the woman it's in.

 

Can you refute this:

FoxHastings said: ↑
Having DNA does NOT give something rights....a dog has DNA, do they have the same rights as humans?