RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion

RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (Full Version)

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

Message

bounty44 -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/15/2017 11:54:28 AM)
id say more or less true, but I think the possibility exists that what we do here can effect our lives outside of here. but at the very least in this case, i see determining when rights accrue is essential just to even have a meaningful conversation about abortion.

jlf1961 -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/15/2017 2:06:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Greta, the cases you are talking about is in the foster care system not adoption. Because nobody wanted the child until a b list celebrity came looking to use other people's misery as a PR stunt in the case she cites. I'm very dubious that you can just give any baby you don't abort up for adoption when the A types rushing towards menopause who are the big market for adoptees are so picky about their brood mares that they sometimes resort to IVF to produce a genetically desirable child to foster. I wouldn't wish some of the stories I've heard about state orphanages on my worst enemy, never mind some child that's done nothing worse than getting born at an inconvenient moment for its parent. May I point out something? All of which fall back on the simple fact that hormonal birth control for women carry a shit load of risks that fall into the category of damned if you do, damned if you dont, which then makes abortion the least dangerous alternative. Condoms are not 100% effective, neither are spermicide based birth control, as for IUD's, gee inserting a foreign object into the human body, while effective, often leads to side effects sometimes referred to as nominal. There are two 100% effective medical forms of birth control, one involves surgery to a male and the other surgery to a female. But the real fucked up point in all this, is that in modern society, it falls to the woman to take responsibility for birth control, or the lack there of. So, yes there are children born who are not wanted, end up in horrible foster care or orphanage situations, because of a bunch of totally fucked up reasons. Which directly leads to the necessary of the abortion option. Oh, and there is a running joke concerning male birth control pills or shots that actually work, 'we’ve been five years away from male contraception for the last 50 years.' And it is a math problem, easier to stop the production of one egg than a few million sperm. And when they found synthetic hormones that did the job, big pharma stopped, even though continuing studies are showing that prolonged use of hormonal birth control has serious health risks. And, and this is the cynic in me, there is a hell of a lot more money to be made from treating the health issues that arise from the side effects than actually developing something that has a lower or zero risk.

Lucylastic -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/15/2017 3:34:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I have no right to force my beliefs on another person, just as someone who feels abortion isn't wrong doesn't have the right to force their belief on me. Sorry wrong premise. I made the decision to get neutered after my youngest was born, about six weeks after...It was a relief knowing that I couldnt get pregnant again, One year later.... Im pregnant again, but this time, because my tubes had been tied, the "conception begins at birth" embryo, got lodged in my fallopian tube. And started to grow. I didnt even suspect I was pregnant, I was on BC for heavy periods and other issues, the cramping got worse, the bleeding got worse, the pain got to be excruciating, to the point I was vomitting . My hubby took me to the hospital, and they removed the ectopic pregnancy, most of my tube, and I got peritonitis, because it had ruptured. I was very sick for a long time, with 3 kids at home and a hubby that couldnt work because the kids were all toddlers, and had no family to help out. I havent been pregnant since. Women being forced to give birth because of peoples beliefs about abortion is hurting women directly, and their families. Its not hurting men, or people not involved in the pregnancy. except in philosophy and the pocket. Your fellow "poster" called me a baby killer. Im not, Ive never had a termination, except for the one that nearly killed me. Ive had 2 miscarriages, Ive had an ectopic pregnancy, Ive had a stillbirth and Ive got 3 healthy children. That was all by age 27 fast forward 28 years, I just stopped taking birth control. Because my body finally decided no more periods. As a pregnant woman(hypothetically)There is nothing I can do To YOU THAT will legally take away your liberty, your freedom and privacy. my beliefs on abortion, birth control and sexual freedom, doesnt and CANT affect ANY mans body, their private life, their future

Lucylastic -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/15/2017 3:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Greta, the cases you are talking about is in the foster care system not adoption. Because nobody wanted the child until a b list celebrity came looking to use other people's misery as a PR stunt in the case she cites. I'm very dubious that you can just give any baby you don't abort up for adoption when the A types rushing towards menopause who are the big market for adoptees are so picky about their brood mares that they sometimes resort to IVF to produce a genetically desirable child to foster. I wouldn't wish some of the stories I've heard about state orphanages on my worst enemy, never mind some child that's done nothing worse than getting born at an inconvenient moment for its parent. May I point out something? All of which fall back on the simple fact that hormonal birth control for women carry a shit load of risks that fall into the category of damned if you do, damned if you dont, which then makes abortion the least dangerous alternative. Condoms are not 100% effective, neither are spermicide based birth control, as for IUD's, gee inserting a foreign object into the human body, while effective, often leads to side effects sometimes referred to as nominal. There are two 100% effective medical forms of birth control, one involves surgery to a male and the other surgery to a female. But the real fucked up point in all this, is that in modern society, it falls to the woman to take responsibility for birth control, or the lack there of. So, yes there are children born who are not wanted, end up in horrible foster care or orphanage situations, because of a bunch of totally fucked up reasons. Which directly leads to the necessary of the abortion option. Oh, and there is a running joke concerning male birth control pills or shots that actually work, 'we’ve been five years away from male contraception for the last 50 years.' And it is a math problem, easier to stop the production of one egg than a few million sperm. And when they found synthetic hormones that did the job, big pharma stopped, even though continuing studies are showing that prolonged use of hormonal birth control has serious health risks. And, and this is the cynic in me, there is a hell of a lot more money to be made from treating the health issues that arise from the side effects than actually developing something that has a lower or zero risk. slight disagreement about the IUD there are a LOT of issues for a LOT of women with IUD, its getting much better than it was 30 years ago, the same with the hormone transplant, but the hormonal effects on their own can be debilitating. otherwise I agree with what you just said.

jlf1961 -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/15/2017 8:13:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic slight disagreement about the IUD there are a LOT of issues for a LOT of women with IUD, its getting much better than it was 30 years ago, the same with the hormone transplant, but the hormonal effects on their own can be debilitating. otherwise I agree with what you just said. Yes, there have been improvements in the IUD over thirty years ago, however, among the problems with the new ones, that I came across, are the damn thing can slip out, perforation of the uterine wall at time of insertion and after some forms of strenuous activities. Not to mention that some women develop problems because of the bodies reaction to having a foreign object inside it, regardless of what it is made of. However, let me ask you this question. Do you think that it is in the best interest of women that the developers of ED treatments such as Viagra are presently spending more money to eliminate the possible side effects than they are spending to finding a female birth control drug with lower chances of harmful side effects? Personally, and you should see the look I get from Father Gibson when I speak my opinion on this, I feel that better forms of birth control should be researched, developed and made available to women that have lower health risk possibilities, so as to basically eliminate the need for the abortion option. Lets face it, there has been little research done to make hormonal birth control safer. The same basic synthetic hormone is still the key ingredient. And while cervical cancer can be caught early, and planned parenthood is a key factor in catching it in the early stages in lower income populations (which, as I read the funds utilization breakdown) is the highest expense they have. But, and this is nuts coming from a male, when pharmaceutical companies spend tens of billions of dollars to make drugs safer that allow an 80 year old to get and maintain an erection, and a small fraction of that total in researching safer birth control for women, what does that say about a society? Or the drug industry? And why the hell arent women breaking down the doors at these corporations and burning the boards of directors at the stake? Look, abortion has the same basic safety odds as putting a stint in a blood vessel that is not actually in the heart. I believe the statistics boil down to less than one in ten. However, unlike arterial procedures, the possible complications include antibiotic resistant staff infections, antibiotic resistant toxic shock syndrome infections, not to mention if the doctor really fucks up, a woman can actually bleed out. Again, those are rare, but they happen, and the incidence of antibiotic resistant infections is on the rise, and with all surgical and wound care situations. So, would you not agree that someone somewhere should think seriously about finding a safer alternative? Now as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, hormonal birth control prevents egg production. If that is the case, I have to ask, and have asked, what the hell the various denominations have against it? If no egg is produced, there is no chance at life, therefore... well you get my point. And while pregnancy is no longer a fifty fifty chance at the infant dying, or the mother dying or both, I will also agree that it is no cake walk, and certainly not with out its own risks. Thus, I have to say, I would have no problems with safe, effective hormonal birth control for men or women. I guess what I am trying to say is that with all the advances in medical science, and the growing suspicion that synthetic hormones may actually be the cause of the health risk to birth control pills and hormone based birth control in general, why the hell is no one pushing for something better? I would like to see abortion rates at less than one percent, with safer birth control available so it abortion is not really a viable alternative.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/15/2017 8:23:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 id say more or less true, but I think the possibility exists that what we do here can effect our lives outside of here. but at the very least in this case, i see determining when rights accrue is essential just to even have a meaningful conversation about abortion. So, we can't have a meaningful conversation without determining when rights are gained? Since we can't do that, why are you in this conversation? Why are you actively joining a conversation that, by you're logic, is meaningless? FFS, damn near every thread on here is meaningless. Until or unless I meet someone from this group, I'd have to say it's not likely that what's discussed here is going to effect my life outside of here.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/15/2017 8:34:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I have no right to force my beliefs on another person, just as someone who feels abortion isn't wrong doesn't have the right to force their belief on me. Sorry wrong premise. It's not a wrong premise at all, Lucy. Everything you went through is bad. My beliefs that abortion is wrong, has nothing to do with you, with what you went through, or with what's available to you. And, that is especially because I believe government has no right to say one way or the other if abortion is allowed. Some will paint me as "Pro Choice" because I would allow you to choose. Others would paint me as Pro Life, because I oppose abortion. I really don't care if other posters call you a baby killer. That's not on me, no matter what the general political leanings of the other poster. If you want to engage in a discussion regarding my beliefs, I'm a big boy. I can do so. But, don't bring in others' beliefs. You can discuss that with them. Know why? It's right up top. You quoted it. I'm going to believe what I believe. You're going to believe what you believe. I will not force my beliefs on you, and you won't force your beliefs on me.

Lucylastic -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/15/2017 10:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I have no right to force my beliefs on another person, just as someone who feels abortion isn't wrong doesn't have the right to force their belief on me. Sorry wrong premise. It's not a wrong premise at all, Lucy. Everything you went through is bad. My beliefs that abortion is wrong, has nothing to do with you, with what you went through, or with what's available to you. And, that is especially because I believe government has no right to say one way or the other if abortion is allowed. Some will paint me as "Pro Choice" because I would allow you to choose. Others would paint me as Pro Life, because I oppose abortion. I really don't care if other posters call you a baby killer. That's not on me, no matter what the general political leanings of the other poster. If you want to engage in a discussion regarding my beliefs, I'm a big boy. I can do so. But, don't bring in others' beliefs. You can discuss that with them. Know why? It's right up top. You quoted it. I'm going to believe what I believe. You're going to believe what you believe. I will not force my beliefs on you, and you won't force your beliefs on me. my relating my fertile years was more to explain, where Im coming from than to complain, lots of people have far worse issues with it. Ive seen far worse as well, so it IS a subject i am passionate about, I am far too passionate about it sometimes. But I am NOT forcing my beliefs on you, Im sharing them. How am I forcing any person who doesnt believe in abortion to do anything? Im not sure where government is stopping them? What is being prevented? I understand your beliefs and can agree with even most, and, also because you talked the talk by getting a vasectomy, My response was not as well thought out as I had hoped. I apologise for that I assumed, wrongly that it wasnt personalised, because I mentioned "any mans body, private life and their future." Its was not meant to be aimed at you personally Im not pro abortion, I dont like abortion, but I refuse to sit quietly, while laws are being made that is reducing that option. I will be the first to cheer when abortion isnt a choice, because women can decide when they want to have children with their partner with safe, reliable, birth control, that works and doesnt affect the woman physically or mentally. Or the chosen resulting pregnancy.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/15/2017 11:42:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I have no right to force my beliefs on another person, just as someone who feels abortion isn't wrong doesn't have the right to force their belief on me. Sorry wrong premise. It's not a wrong premise at all, Lucy. Everything you went through is bad. My beliefs that abortion is wrong, has nothing to do with you, with what you went through, or with what's available to you. And, that is especially because I believe government has no right to say one way or the other if abortion is allowed. Some will paint me as "Pro Choice" because I would allow you to choose. Others would paint me as Pro Life, because I oppose abortion. I really don't care if other posters call you a baby killer. That's not on me, no matter what the general political leanings of the other poster. If you want to engage in a discussion regarding my beliefs, I'm a big boy. I can do so. But, don't bring in others' beliefs. You can discuss that with them. Know why? It's right up top. You quoted it. I'm going to believe what I believe. You're going to believe what you believe. I will not force my beliefs on you, and you won't force your beliefs on me. my relating my fertile years was more to explain, where Im coming from than to complain, lots of people have far worse issues with it. Ive seen far worse as well, so it IS a subject i am passionate about, I am far too passionate about it sometimes. I know you're passionate about this, and you've shared before. I didn't take it as complaining. I apologize if my post sent that message. That was not the intention. quote: But I am NOT forcing my beliefs on you, Im sharing them. How am I forcing any person who doesnt believe in abortion to do anything? Im not sure where government is stopping them? What is being prevented? I understand your beliefs and can agree with even most, and, also because you talked the talk by getting a vasectomy, My response was not as well thought out as I had hoped. I apologise for that I assumed, wrongly that it wasnt personalised, because I mentioned "any mans body, private life and their future." Its was not meant to be aimed at you personally Im not pro abortion, I dont like abortion, but I refuse to sit quietly, while laws are being made that is reducing that option. I will be the first to cheer when abortion isnt a choice, because women can decide when they want to have children with their partner with safe, reliable, birth control, that works and doesnt affect the woman physically or mentally. Or the chosen resulting pregnancy. I want to point out I chopped most of your previous post for a reason. I was only interested in addressing your assertion that what you quoted was a false premise. Your history was immaterial to that discussion. I'm sure writing it didn't bring up fond memories. I didn't want for it to be replicated so you had to see it over and over. Bounty questioned how I could believe abortion to be 'wrong' yet also believe that a woman had a 'right' to get an abortion. If I were to actively work to prevent a woman from having the option of getting an abortion, i would be pushing my beliefs on her. Maybe I should have clarified that I believe that, in most cases, getting an abortion is wrong, but I also believe that each person gets to figure out what they believe is right or wrong. If someone comes to me and asks my opinion, I'll give it, and do so with background and support for why I believe it is wrong. I will also explain to them that they get to decide for themselves. If someone asks me for money to get one, in most cases, I'll decline, because it's my money and I think it's wrong. If they decide it's not wrong and want to spend their money, who am I to get in the way? People who want to help others get abortions can donate to Planned Parenthood, and probably can even do so specifying that they want their money to go solely towards providing abortions. To take taxpayer money to pay for abortions? I oppose that (which is why I support laws the make taxpayer funding going to pay for abortions illegal). And, yes, even though I'm arguing with Bounty, I do believe it's a human rights of the developing human issue. Specific to your history, I don't blame you at all for aborting. In situations, only similar to yours, I wouldn't knock the couple no matter which way they choose (baby's life ends or mother's life ends). I can't imagine, as I've said previously, the magnitude of that choice, or the ramifications of whichever choice was made. I can only hope that no one I know ever has to go through that.

BitaTruble -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 12:51:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, hormonal birth control prevents egg production. If that is the case, I have to ask, and have asked, what the hell the various denominations have against it? If no egg is produced, there is no chance at life, therefore... well you get my point. Hormal birth control prevents ovulation. A female is born with around 2 million eggs. No more are produced in her lifetime and the eggs themselves die off fairly rapidly so that by the time she begins cycling she has around 3-400,000. The eggs still remaining continue to die so that around 40 or so, few eggs are left and once they are all gone, a female is infertile. I suppose we could always start harvesting eggs from the female at birth, freeze those puppies until she’s ready to breed then no abortions would ever be needed and she would have 2 million eggs instead of only 3-400,000. 🍳🍳🍳

bounty44 -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 3:12:15 AM)
one of the reasons why im here, is to simply state what I believe or to forward thinking, independent of "conversation." also, worthwhile things occur apart from "meaningful" conversation. but that said, in this context, let me qualify "meaningful" by saying "moving forward to some agreeable point." a starting point for agreeing on something when it comes to abortion, seems to me to focus on the issue of the baby's rights.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 3:50:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 one of the reasons why im here, is to simply state what I believe or to forward thinking, independent of "conversation." also, worthwhile things occur apart from "meaningful" conversation. but that said, in this context, let me qualify "meaningful" by saying "moving forward to some agreeable point." a starting point for agreeing on something when it comes to abortion, seems to me to focus on the issue of the baby's rights. If we were to come to an agreement on when a fetus gains human rights, what will that end up doing? It's entirely possible that not another single person on here would agree with our "agreed upon time." I've already stated I don't know when a fetus becomes a human, with human rights. I will not agree that it's at fertilization. I will not agree it's at conception. It seems that The Law thinks it's around 22-24 weeks gestation. What is the definition of "late term" as it pertains to a "late term abortion?" When do you think a fertilized egg gains full human rights?

bounty44 -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 4:02:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri When do you think a fertilized egg gains full human rights? for me, a right to life is assumed at conception but I know many people wont abide by that. I see the purpose of coming to an agreement---not between you and I, but rather in the abstract---as being the starting point by which legislation can effectively flow. or some other sense of "okay, knowing this, how then do we live." while im here, I have an old book by randy alcorn, called "pro life answers to pro choice arguments. I found a summary of the book in bullet form that's worth looking at. https://catholicreligionteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/pro-life-answers-to-pro-choice-arguments-pdf.pdf

DesideriScuri -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 5:57:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri When do you think a fertilized egg gains full human rights? for me, a right to life is assumed at conception but I know many people wont abide by that. I see the purpose of coming to an agreement---not between you and I, but rather in the abstract---as being the starting point by which legislation can effectively flow. or some other sense of "okay, knowing this, how then do we live." while im here, I have an old book by randy alcorn, called "pro life answers to pro choice arguments. I found a summary of the book in bullet form that's worth looking at. https://catholicreligionteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/pro-life-answers-to-pro-choice-arguments-pdf.pdf So, we - you and I - can't come to agreement on when a fertilized egg assumes human rights. If you and I can't - considering we agree on an awful lot of stuff - come to an agreement, how are we going to even come close to coming to an agreement with a broader category of people who do and don't agree with us very much? Since you and I can't come to an agreement as to when an fertilized egg assumes human rights, where do we go from here? If human rights are assumed at conception, is it negligent homicide if a woman engages in a risky behavior that results in a miscarriage if she didn't know she was pregnant? Or, if she, indeed, knew she was pregnant and engaged in risky behavior, would it be involuntary manslaughter if, as a result of her actions, she miscarried? How can "human life" describe a single cell, or any of it's initial splits?

WhoreMods -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 6:16:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri When do you think a fertilized egg gains full human rights? for me, a right to life is assumed at conception but I know many people wont abide by that. I see the purpose of coming to an agreement---not between you and I, but rather in the abstract---as being the starting point by which legislation can effectively flow. or some other sense of "okay, knowing this, how then do we live." while im here, I have an old book by randy alcorn, called "pro life answers to pro choice arguments. I found a summary of the book in bullet form that's worth looking at. https://catholicreligionteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/pro-life-answers-to-pro-choice-arguments-pdf.pdf So, we - you and I - can't come to agreement on when a fertilized egg assumes human rights. If you and I can't - considering we agree on an awful lot of stuff - come to an agreement, how are we going to even come close to coming to an agreement with a broader category of people who do and don't agree with us very much? Since you and I can't come to an agreement as to when an fertilized egg assumes human rights, where do we go from here? If human rights are assumed at conception, is it negligent homicide if a woman engages in a risky behavior that results in a miscarriage if she didn't know she was pregnant? Or, if she, indeed, knew she was pregnant and engaged in risky behavior, would it be involuntary manslaughter if, as a result of her actions, she miscarried? How can "human life" describe a single cell, or any of it's initial splits? It can't, obviously. In fact, you're not taking your hyperbolic exaggeration far enough in this case: if these rights should be extended to a fertilised egg, then there's no reason they can't be extended to an unfertilised egg as well. Certainly the religious right's aversion to certain forms of birth control and tendency to equate them with abortion suggests as much, doesn't it?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 6:23:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods It can't, obviously. In fact, you're not taking your hyperbolic exaggeration far enough in this case: if these rights should be extended to a fertilised egg, then there's no reason they can't be extended to an unfertilised egg as well. Certainly the religious right's aversion to certain forms of birth control and tendency to equate them with abortion suggests as much, doesn't it? Sure it can. An unfertilized egg does not have all the genetic code of a human. Once it's fertilized, it has all the genetic code of a human. Dude. That was easy. I truly think The Church's opposition to birth control was started by the church because they wanted to grow their congregation, not really because of any scriptural reasoning. To take your hyperbolic hyperbole to higher hyperbolic heights, imagine the outrage of the millions ... and millions of "human rights holders" teenage boys murder every day. [:D]

Lucylastic -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 7:08:12 AM)
General question... So personhood bills will not force any woman to give birth once she is pregnant? Is the word force that is a problem?? how about denial of her beliefs, or forcing her beliefs to align with the state and church?? Government "forcing" a cake maker to bake a cake is wrong, because it goes against his beliefs but forcing every woman to carry to term, is fine. because her life, her beliefs are immaterial NOt to mention it would put IVF and its various medical procedures in danger.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 7:22:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic General question... So personhood bills will not force any woman to give birth once she is pregnant? Is the word force that is a problem?? how about denial of her beliefs, or forcing her beliefs to align with the state and church?? Government "forcing" a cake maker to bake a cake is wrong, because it goes against his beliefs but forcing every woman to carry to term, is fine. because her life, her beliefs are immaterial NOt to mention it would put IVF and its various medical procedures in danger. If this is an FR, you forgot it again. Human right to life is far, far, different than the supposed right of a gay couple to force a cake maker to customize a cake opposed to his belief. For one, the cake makers belief isn't crossing anyone's inalienable human right. According to current law, there are limitations and conditions on when a woman can decide to abort. At some point in time, a fetus does begin to gain human rights. Is there truly a difference between a fetus that is on it's way out the birth canal, and a baby that has just exited the birth canal? Is the former truly less of a human than the latter, and not eligible for protection of human rights? If a fetus has no rights until it's born, an abortion should allowable right up until birth, no? I mean, it's not really a human, as far as rights are concerned (in that argument). In your opinion, at what point does a fetus gain it's humanity? At what point does a fetus's inalienable human rights (you know, the ones that are "endowed by [its] Creator") deserve to be protected? You ask an awful lot of questions (which is great), but rarely actually answer any (which is not). How about you start answering as many as you ask?

WhoreMods -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 7:23:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods It can't, obviously. In fact, you're not taking your hyperbolic exaggeration far enough in this case: if these rights should be extended to a fertilised egg, then there's no reason they can't be extended to an unfertilised egg as well. Certainly the religious right's aversion to certain forms of birth control and tendency to equate them with abortion suggests as much, doesn't it? Sure it can. An unfertilized egg does not have all the genetic code of a human. Once it's fertilized, it has all the genetic code of a human. Dude. That was easy. I truly think The Church's opposition to birth control was started by the church because they wanted to grow their congregation, not really because of any scriptural reasoning. To take your hyperbolic hyperbole to higher hyperbolic heights, imagine the outrage of the millions ... and millions of "human rights holders" teenage boys murder every day. [:D] If it was just IUDs that they were getting snotty about rather than birth control tablets and prophylactics, I could buy that they were only concerned about zygotes rather than gametes but as things stand, probably not. The mass slaughter of spunk point is well made, but, as the whole debate about birth control and abortion has repeatedly made clear over and over again, inconveniencing the male of the species is a lot less of an issue for the religious right than enforcing their will on women.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Congress pass new abortion law to ban late term abortion (12/16/2017 7:56:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods It can't, obviously. In fact, you're not taking your hyperbolic exaggeration far enough in this case: if these rights should be extended to a fertilised egg, then there's no reason they can't be extended to an unfertilised egg as well. Certainly the religious right's aversion to certain forms of birth control and tendency to equate them with abortion suggests as much, doesn't it? Sure it can. An unfertilized egg does not have all the genetic code of a human. Once it's fertilized, it has all the genetic code of a human. Dude. That was easy. I truly think The Church's opposition to birth control was started by the church because they wanted to grow their congregation, not really because of any scriptural reasoning. To take your hyperbolic hyperbole to higher hyperbolic heights, imagine the outrage of the millions ... and millions of "human rights holders" teenage boys murder every day. [:D] If it was just IUDs that they were getting snotty about rather than birth control tablets and prophylactics, I could buy that they were only concerned about zygotes rather than gametes but as things stand, probably not. The mass slaughter of spunk point is well made, but, as the whole debate about birth control and abortion has repeatedly made clear over and over again, inconveniencing the male of the species is a lot less of an issue for the religious right than enforcing their will on women. Yeah, we don't agree on what the debate says. At all.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625