Bloomberg to pregnant female employee: "Kill it"

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by kazenatsu, Nov 16, 2019.

  1. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,175
    Likes Received:
    1,754
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's no irony at all.

    Women are individuals, and individuals have rights.

    A fetus is not an individual, and non-individuals do not have rights.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
    FoxHastings likes this.
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,512
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That seems to be a little bit of a semantic argument.

    My point was there are pro-choicers who argue that even though, or even if, the fetus were/is a person, the woman would still have a right to abort it.

    Obviously by claiming the fetus is a non-person, you would be completely side-stepping the issue and going back to a different fundamental argument.
    Using the term "individual" just makes it more ambiguous as to what you're trying to refer to. (i.e. Is the fetus a "person" but not an individual, and it's because of the lack of separation from the mother that abortion is okay?)

    It's a little disingenuous to use the "Well, a fetus is not a person, so you're wrong" argument as a rebuttal to every pro-life argument.
    Yes, obviously, if you win that argument, you win all the other arguments. Doesn't mean it's an appropriate rebuttal to every pro-life point made against pro-choice arguments.
    It would be like if there was a presidential debate, and in response to every issue being brought up for discussion, one of the candidates used the defense "Well that doesn't matter because of this issue over here". The candidate could even be correct, but it's in very poor debate form.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,512
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you believe this is one of the reasons women should get abortions, to keep their jobs?

    Do you see any exploitation of women here?
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  4. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,861
    Likes Received:
    15,125
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Balaoney, The FACT that "" a fetus is not a person," is the whole point and nothing but the point.
     
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,861
    Likes Received:
    15,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's alleged remarks from a former Republican.... who does not speak for all progressives or anyone else but himself.




    But thank you for showing that women ARE losing their jobs if they get pregnant....another reason to get an abortion...some women can't afford to lose their jobs and would have to go on the Republican's hate list, the Welfare rolls, if they opt to keep the pregnancy.....



    NO, I never said they "SHOULD"....

    WHY do you have to always skew what posters post? Don't you have any good arguments? :) :) :)





    Of course..... and it's exploitation of women by Anti-Choicers who want to take away women's right to their own bodies !!!!!



    Above is the full honest version of the post you needed to cherry pick :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2019
  6. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,175
    Likes Received:
    1,754
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is appropriate to bring this up whenever points are raised that make assumptions based on conditions that are not true or don't exist. Consider it a tether to a grounded reality in a debate where emotions tend to blow things up.

    What you're actually suggesting here is, for example, to not dismiss the laws of physics and human anatomy if I was to ask you "If humans were able to fly without needing some kind of technology or equipment, would it be okay for them to fly over airports". I suppose we could have a whole debate on whether or not it would be okay for a human to fly themselves over airports, but the entire thing is kind of pointless since the conditions in the first part of my statement are impossible to meet. Likewise when it comes to talking about fetuses and mothers. We could entertain all the emotional arguments about fetal personhood but ultimately none of them matter because a fetus is not an individual, and the law only recognizes individuals when it comes to personhood and rights.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,861
    Likes Received:
    15,125
    Trophy Points:
    113

    What? When TF did any Pro-Choicer say it's not her child??!
     
  8. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,861
    Likes Received:
    15,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :) So quiet....
     
  9. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    11,136
    Likes Received:
    7,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So should she be forced to kill it?
     
  10. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,512
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is she truly "forced to" ?
    She can always stop working there.

    Maybe we should use the terms coerced or pressured.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2019
  11. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,861
    Likes Received:
    15,125
    Trophy Points:
    113


    NO, the "solution" is NOT for women to "stop working there"....this is not on them, it's on the company....





    """kazenatsu said:
    Do pro-choicers still believe it's not her child when the woman's being coerced and pressured?
    Click to expand.."""""".





    What? When TF did any Pro-Choicer say it's not her child??!
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2019
  12. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    11,136
    Likes Received:
    7,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or maybe we can just stay out of her business.
     
  13. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,512
    Likes Received:
    4,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think it's okay to put this on the company, but not okay to put it on the woman?

    And by "staying out of her business", presumably you mean not doing anything to help her when she is pressured into getting an abortion, or fired by her employer for choosing to remain pregnant.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  14. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,861
    Likes Received:
    15,125
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Because it is NOT the woman who started the action against her....it was the company.......
     
  15. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,473
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I think she don't need Bloomberg's opinion about what she would do with the baby inside of her, whatsoever it's her baby and she has all the responsibility of nurturing that angel inside. One more thing, why did she asks Bloomberg about it? is there something like a blue pill involved.:rolleyes::p
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    45,861
    Likes Received:
    15,125
    Trophy Points:
    113



    WHEN did anyone say it wasn't her child??
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2019

Share This Page