It’s not about the shirt. I’ll explain after I provide I provide a picture of the shirts I’m referencing. The point is, if it was murder for the man to assault her because the baby died. Then on what grounds is it not murder for her to kill the exact same baby on the exact same date of pregnancy? Either it’s a life or it’s not.
Because in the case of rape it was not a decision that the woman made to engage in an activity which had the risk of pregnancy.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) gives stiffer sentences for killing a fetus , a VICTIM of violence.., IT DOES NOT GRANT THE FETUS PERSONHOOD...
FoxHastings said: ↑ Why are conservatives against abortion? The procedure and outcome for an abortion due to rape is exactly the same procedure and outcome if the pregnancy was due to consensual sex. In each, a fetus is killed. Why do they make an exception for rape? So you think women who had consensual sex should be punished with forced gestation..... IT IS all about PUNISHING WOMEN WHO HAVE CONSENSUAL SEX and NOT ABOUT THAT "PRECIOUS LIFE" of the FETUS!!!!!! which is killed in ALL abortions....
Please explain how MURDER is a consequence of killing a fetus if it doesn’t have personhood? You can’t murder something that’s not alive. I don’t think you know what murder means?
I don't think the problem is abortion- the problem is the state of the society. The more capable people are, the better decisions they make. They make decisions to make the future work, rather than considering only the emotions of the moment. Nearly everything we decide on today in some way helps shape the future. IF we really want that future to be bright, we need to improve the quality of the world those future citizens come from. And I do not mean eliminating poverty by having someone else pay their bills- I mean finding ways to get people to stand on their own, to raise the bar on what they expect of themselves. When you do that, you will see less crime, less poverty, less poverty, less homelessness, less mental issues- across the board improvement. While the tendency is to patch what's wrong today- those are only symptoms of an underlying cause, and they will never go away until that underlying cause is dealt with. Because the condition behind this is individual, a society can't just declare a solution; it depends on how we raise our kids, on the values we demonstrate and model for them, the way we teach them responsibility.... And if you don't have those things, you cannot teach them to children. That would say- that as a first step, people unfit or unable to create the environment that produces the strongest children, shouldn't be having children. Nature doesn't have government or politicians or colleges or experts or psychologists or doctors. The laws of nature are incredibly simple; they totally work, and because of the way they work- millions of species other than humans have thrived for millions of years- and they did not poison the planet or use up all the natural resources or wipe out other species systematically. It should be obvious that they know something we don't know- but most of us refuse to learn what that is. Nature promotes the traits that build a stronger species... we breed the ones that don't. I think that no answer is total because human weakness and fault will always exist. And sad but true is a comedian's joke, that "you can't fix stupid". We have huge capacity... but consistently act stupidly. I don't have any confidence that will change soon.
False. It’s not about controlling the woman. It’s about making sure a baby isn’t punished for the dumbass actions of its “mother”.
Well I mean I agree. But to do so you can’t remove all consequences and personal accountability for someone’s actions. That only exacerbates the problem. You have to ENFORCE actual consequences. Otherwise, people have absolutely zero incentive to choose better because they have no (or relatively few compared to the alternative) consequences for their actions. You’re saying one thing… which I agree with. But the policies you suggest to do that are completely antithesis to what would fix the problem. In fact the policy of removing those consequences has the exact opposite effect. It exacerbates the problem.
FoxHastings said: ↑ The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) gives stiffer sentences for killing a fetus , a VICTIM of violence.., IT DOES NOT GRANT THE FETUS PERSONHOOD.. NO ONE SAID A FETUS IS NOT ALIVE! I KNOW you have NO idea of what the UVVA says.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Why are conservatives against abortion? The procedure and outcome for an abortion due to rape is exactly the same procedure and outcome if the pregnancy was due to consensual sex. In each, a fetus is killed. Why do they make an exception for rape? So you think women who had consensual sex should be punished with forced gestation..... IT IS all about PUNISHING WOMEN WHO HAVE CONSENSUAL SEX and NOT ABOUT THAT "PRECIOUS LIFE" of the FETUS!!!!!! which is killed in ALL abortions.... But OK to "murder" the fetus due to the actions of the father in rape ???? The "baby" ( REALLY A FETUS) isn't punished if the abortion is due to rape? Sorry, you can't have it both ways. The procedure and outcome for an abortion due to rape is exactly the same procedure and outcome if the pregnancy was due to consensual sex. In each, a fetus is killed. :) I also note that you think having sex is a "dumbass" action......
Exactly! This is why we cannot codify into law an implied demonization of women needing to seek out an abortion. The individual circumstances are personal and private and only a doctor and whoever the woman can trust should be the ones assisting her in making that decision.
I think you assume things you probably have no experience with or knowledge of. If a woman has an abortion, in most cases that remains a painful time and memory in her life, and a decision she will re-think a thousand times. Those are consequences, and they are personal. If she consider but chooses not to abort, that too may have huge consequences. If the conditions are such that the decision makes it impossible for her to follow her dreams of education or the many possibilities she perceived before- she may be living far less a life than she would have has otherwise, and deeply resent the decision, possibly the child as well. IF that decision resulted from the pressure and brow-beating of the "righteous" who then walk away without another thought and leave her the consequences- she is going to resent them too, and rightfully so. She may also decide that not aborting was the best decision even though is altered her life. However, she is the person dealing with the consequence of any choice. Most women search their souls for the right answers in considering abortion; it is not casual or easy or a choice of convenience. The point is that she- not you and I- would bear all those consequences. When you have no skin in the game, you should be very hesitant to force your views on others who do.
One thing for sure- it has nothing to do with anyone else. I disagree that all life is valuable. If you look at what controls the quality of a society- you invariably find it comes down to the quality of the people. Some are raging lunatics and murderers, also some are the finest and kindest. Much of this depends on the environment they came from. That includes cocaine babies, children who live in totally dysfunctional families. Some from bad beginnings turn out to be exceptional, just as some from the best beginnings turn out to be terrible. But overall, we know that two things have greatest influence in the question of what a child becomes. One is genetics. While we pay great attention to this when breeding dogs, livestock etc- we pay little to none among people. That brings us to nurture, the environment of the child. Most experts agree that the personality and values of a child are established very early. They aren't learned in words, they are imprints from examples modeled around them, and that begins even while in the womb- where the child is aware of screaming and anger for example. Chaos can be normalized, which means the child knows nothing else. Parenting is actually a kind of construction process- that of building a sound human being capable of managing their own lives. If a solid foundation for that is not laid down by that environment from the start, a flawed and corrupt one will be there instead, and the potential for the quality of that life will drop like a stone. That foundation is very hard to change, and every thing that child learns will have to fit the foundation to seem acceptable. Sometimes a woman who wants to be the nurturing parent knows that because of conditions, the time is not right for bringing a child into the world. Because she is a vital component of the building process, she, more than any of us- knows if that is viable or not. There are no good answers to this issue, but I can't see where it is the business of people who have nothing invested in the choice except their righteous egos. It's hard to allow other people to make their own choices, including what you see as mistakes. I think that is something we must learn to do- mind our own business when it's not our business.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yes, inside HER body, not yours and not the governments.. Uh, that's not a point...... The important POINT is ...it's inside HER body, not yours and not the governments.....which you can't refute
~ The beating heart of a developing fetus is another human life — not the Mother's. That is the point. There is a difference ...
I think there could be a kind of answer, if the science gets good enough. Perhaps a future-world concept, far away- Some kind of implant, a genetic signaling device- implanted at birth which made conception impossible. Men and women both. At such time a person was ready and able to handle raising a family, they simply see a doctor who can then remove or cancel the device. Would solve one hell of a lot of problems.
We're not sposed to try and empathize with the other side. Lifers want to enslave women, choicers enjoy sacrificing babies. We're easier to control when we hate eachother.
~ It could already be in the works another way. Sounds like there may be some mounting evidence that the covid-19 " vaccine " experiment may effect the ability to procreate. We shall see ...
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yes, inside HER body, not yours and not the governments.. Uh, that's not a point...... The important POINT is ...it's inside HER body, not yours and not the governments.....which you can't refute Irrelevant but A heart that wouldn't be beating if it wasn't inside a woman...
