RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception

RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

erieangel -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 3:56:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Maybe the right to life idiots have the morning after pill confused with a punch in the stomach? That will probably become the standard abortion procedure in Mississippi... Actually, I betcha that about 4 shots of whiskey would do the job, and if it didn't, repeat until either it does, or the kid counts as a birth defect baby from FAS... Lotsa low level toxics you can consume that will kill a fetus long before they kill the mom, including a lot of "herbal remedies," in sufficient doses. Certain vitamins taken in large quantities will become poisons, this will kill the fetus before the mother, and the vitamins will then be used and exit the system, which is a pretty safe way to go. Guess what Righties, there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry Moonhead, realize that quote may be offensive with your profile pic...) The problem with your solutions, softbonds, is that women across the country have already been arrested for using such methods. One women, I can't remember the state (I'll have to look it up) was arrested after she miscarried following a fall. She admitted to hospital staff to having been suicidal.

xssve -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 3:58:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds Funny how as soon as I show that the constitution means any woman forced not to have an abortion can sue the state for the cost of her body, the desire to make abortion illegal is no longer worth discussing? Do the pro-lifers not want to pay higher taxes to pay women for their wombs? Nah, they're not responsible, god is supposed to take care of all that. The check is in the mail. [;)]

Truthness -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:03:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds After all, doesn't the 5th amendment to the constitution say: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." You see, if a state doesn't allow a woman to get an abortion, the state has taken her womb for public use, and she has the right to sue the state for the value of that property! By that logic, of course, if a woman decides she no longer wants her 5 year old kid, by not being allowed to kill the kid the government is "seizing" her food/money/housing space. So she'd be allowed to sue the state for that if they don't allow her to murder the kid. Since apparently it's time to be silly and all.

SoftBonds -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:13:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthness quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds After all, doesn't the 5th amendment to the constitution say: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." You see, if a state doesn't allow a woman to get an abortion, the state has taken her womb for public use, and she has the right to sue the state for the value of that property! By that logic, of course, if a woman decides she no longer wants her 5 year old kid, by not being allowed to kill the kid the government is "seizing" her food/money/housing space. So she'd be allowed to sue the state for that if they don't allow her to murder the kid. Since apparently it's time to be silly and all. If a woman decides she no longer wants her 5 year old kid, she can take him to an adoption agency, or in many states a hospital or social services office. There are many ways for an overwhelmed parent to give a child to the state's care temporarily or perminently. Explain to me how a woman could give her 2nd trimester fetus to the state and I will accept your argument...

erieangel -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:14:40 PM)
Here are just a few links to stories about women who have been jailed after having miscarriages: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/27/miscarriage-is-a-crime http://news.change.org/stories/pregnant-iowa-woman-arrested-for-falling-down http://news.change.org/stories/doctor-gets-court-order-to-confine-pregnant-woman-against-her-will http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/prmcknight.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges/print

Truthness -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:15:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds Explain to me how a woman could give her 2nd trimester fetus to the state and I will accept your argument... After you explain how a woman loses possession of her body upon having a child. :p

farglebargle -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:17:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn If you have car insurance your premiums pay to fix somebody else's wreck. Your premiums go into the Insurer's bank account. At that point it's not your money, and what the insurer does with it isn't any of your problem. AND if an insurer needs to spend MORE than they've collected in premiums for any particular insured, 1) Their actuaries suck, and they get no sympathy because they fail to compete effectively, and 2) Their investment income sucks, and again, they get no sympathy. They're SUPPOSED to be taking premium dollars and INVESTING THEM so that their investment income covers any losses. If they're actually tapping into reserves, they suck, and again get no sympathy because they fail to compete effectively. See Also: Fungible.

farglebargle -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:21:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthness quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle . It's to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where these Neanderthals think they belong. So you're claiming almost 50% of women are Neanderthals who want women pregnant and in the kitchen? Stockholm Syndrome. They've been effectively brainwashed by their cult. See Also: Mormon Polygamy.

SoftBonds -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthness quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds Explain to me how a woman could give her 2nd trimester fetus to the state and I will accept your argument... After you explain how a woman loses possession of her body upon having a child. :p I think Erieangel just did. If a woman is not pregnant, she can drink alcohol until she pukes, fall down a flight of stairs, and go to an abortion clinic. If she is pregnant, and someone tries to stop her from doing any of those things because of the "risk to the fetus," then they have "taken," her body, taking portions of her freedom. Also, a woman who is pregnant has significant restrictions on her activities because of body changes, has to buy extra, specialized, clothing, eat extra food, etc. If a woman does not wish to do that, then either she can end her pregnancy at will, or you are taking aspects of her life away. Would you be OK with me coming to your house and locking a metal gauntlet over your right hand which had no fingers, rendering that arm useless except to hold a door open? I'd take it off after only 9 months after all... Edit: What is the cost to hire a surrogate mother? If a woman wants an abortion, and the state is preventing her from having one, the state is forcing her to be a surrogate to the child. If you can show that surrogate mothers are available at no cost to people with no relation to the genetic parents, then the cost the state should have to reimburse is zero. However I am pretty sure the going rate is in the 5 figures, maybe low 6 digits now...

xssve -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:33:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthness quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds After all, doesn't the 5th amendment to the constitution say: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." You see, if a state doesn't allow a woman to get an abortion, the state has taken her womb for public use, and she has the right to sue the state for the value of that property! By that logic, of course, if a woman decides she no longer wants her 5 year old kid, by not being allowed to kill the kid the government is "seizing" her food/money/housing space. So she'd be allowed to sue the state for that if they don't allow her to murder the kid. Since apparently it's time to be silly and all. Uh, no, we all pretty much agree a viable fetus is protected unless that fetus is attempting to kill the mother, nobody is asking to change that, you're just trying to change the definition of "viable". And there is nothing silly about it: is the uterus private or public property? No other person has the right to invade my home, they are going to be evicted regardless of how "viable" they are, much less given the right to demand my full time material and social support for the next 18 years and beyond, what makes a mass of cells different? How absurd is it, really?

Truthness -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:46:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve No other person has the right to invade my home, they are going to be evicted regardless of how "viable" they are, much less given the right to demand my full time material and social support for the next 18 years and beyond, what makes a mass of cells different? What makes a "mass of cells" different? Sex (ya know, the act that generally leads to pregnancy) is typically a consensual act, so it can be argued that the "mass of cells" was invited; not invading. (And that's the rationale for pro-lifers making an exception for rape, since then the creation of the fetus was not due to a consensual act).

SoftBonds -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:51:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthness quote: ORIGINAL: xssve No other person has the right to invade my home, they are going to be evicted regardless of how "viable" they are, much less given the right to demand my full time material and social support for the next 18 years and beyond, what makes a mass of cells different? What makes a "mass of cells" different? Sex (ya know, the act that generally leads to pregnancy) is typically a consensual act, so it can be argued that the "mass of cells" was invited; not invading. (And that's the rationale for pro-lifers making an exception for rape, since then the creation of the fetus was not due to a consensual act). So if you invite me over to your house, I don't have to leave for 9 months??? Not sure that works well for you... You still haven't told me how a woman turns a 2nd trimester baby over to the state if she doesn't want her body used by the state to incubate the fetus...

Truthness -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 4:55:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds So if you invite me over to your house, I don't have to leave for 9 months??? Not sure that works well for you... You still haven't told me how a woman turns a 2nd trimester baby over to the state if she doesn't want her body used by the state to incubate the fetus... Well I don't accept your premise that having a child caused by a consensual act is the "government seizing her assets" so I guess we're even.

SoftBonds -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 5:01:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthness quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds So if you invite me over to your house, I don't have to leave for 9 months??? Not sure that works well for you... You still haven't told me how a woman turns a 2nd trimester baby over to the state if she doesn't want her body used by the state to incubate the fetus... Well I don't accept your premise that having a child caused by a consensual act is the "government seizing her assets" so I guess we're even. OK, then I should be able to restrict what you can do with your property, specifically your gun wielding hand, for the protection of people who you might shoot. It may cause you some inconvenience, but it isn't like I am "seizing," it, you still have it... We are not talking about how the fetus got there, we are talking about whether a woman can kick an unwelcome guest out. Now maybe if you agreed that any woman can tell the state the father of her child, and have his winkie locked up in one of those weird curved chastity devices for the same 9 months, I could meet you halfway at that point. Of course, as soon as women have that right, abortion would be sacrament... (after all, what woman wouldn't choose to exercise that right)...

Truthness -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 5:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds OK, then I should be able to restrict what you can do with your property, specifically your gun wielding hand, for the protection of people who you might shoot. It may cause you some inconvenience, but it isn't like I am "seizing," it, you still have it... Those restrictions already exist, and if I violate them by shooting someone, guess what happens?

tazzygirl -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 5:34:19 PM)
quote: Well I don't accept your premise that having a child caused by a consensual act is the "government seizing her assets" so I guess we're even. How consensual is it if birth control is used but fails?

farglebargle -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 5:53:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthness quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds So if you invite me over to your house, I don't have to leave for 9 months??? Not sure that works well for you... You still haven't told me how a woman turns a 2nd trimester baby over to the state if she doesn't want her body used by the state to incubate the fetus... Well I don't accept your premise that having a child caused by a consensual act is the "government seizing her assets" so I guess we're even. If the uterus is her property, and the fetus her own creation of her own property , don't PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS require that we respect whatever decisions she makes about her property? What so we call people who think they're in control of other people's property? Thieves.

kalikshama -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 5:59:54 PM)
quote: There are many "medicinal herbal" abortion remedies. quote: Do any of them work? 30,000 years ago, Ayla was successfully using herbal contraception for herself and knew of abortifacients [:D]

GotSteel -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/9/2012 8:27:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: pghays04 As for someone being anti women because they oppose taxpayers paying for a woman's birth control just doesn't fly with me. As a practicing agnostic, today is my day to be a Christian Scientist. I want to protest the use of taxpayer dollars paying for anything my religion does not support. If medicare dollars are going to any treatment other than a "cleansing," I demand it stop immediately on the grounds of violation of my first amendment right to freedom of religion!!! I object taxpayer money shouldn't be spent on cleansing, peg leg and eye patch coverage is all there should be!

Moonhead -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/9/2012 8:29:40 AM)
Hang on, does that mean that as a practicing pastafarian I can't get free spaghetti at the tax payer's expense?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875