Poll of the Day > Why are people freaking out over Alabama?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Kyuubi4269 05/19/19 10:15:16 AM #153:	_AdjI_ posted... "Just don't sleep around" is a popular saying, but everyone saying it always seems to forget that there's somebody else sleeping with them who's equally to blame. Hot take: pro-life men are used to the idea that they have no choice in parenthood after sex so feel bitter that women can decide to deny their bloodline or force fatherhood (dependant on perspective). --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:922091809] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>_AdjI_ posted...</cite> <quote>"Just don't sleep around" is a popular saying, but everyone saying it always seems to forget that there's somebody else sleeping with them who's equally to blame.</quote> Hot take: pro-life men are used to the idea that they have no choice in parenthood after sex so feel bitter that women can decide to deny their bloodline or force fatherhood (dependant on perspective).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 05/19/19 10:16:18 AM #154:	ninja_lootz posted... _AdjI_ posted... LinkPizza posted... Its weird. They already have places full of children that need homes. And now they want to fill those places up even more with all these new accidental children... Its just too much... While also cutting funding for such programs, no less. Or at least not expanding them. The abject hypocrisy of pro-lifers is really getting rather old. How hard is it to understand that some people think a fetus is a person and abortions are therefor murder? Murder is unlawful killing. It's undeniably a killing, but for the 21st century it isn't murder. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:922091850] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>_AdjI_ posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Its weird. They already have places full of children that need homes. And now they want to fill those places up even more with all these new accidental children... Its just too much...</quote> While also cutting funding for such programs, no less. Or at least not expanding them. The abject hypocrisy of pro-lifers is really getting rather old.</quote> How hard is it to understand that some people think a fetus is a person and abortions are therefor murder?</quote> Murder is unlawful killing. It's undeniably a killing, but for the 21st century it isn't murder.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_AdjI_ 05/19/19 12:19:44 PM #155:	ninja_lootz posted... _AdjI_ posted... LinkPizza posted... Its weird. They already have places full of children that need homes. And now they want to fill those places up even more with all these new accidental children... Its just too much... While also cutting funding for such programs, no less. Or at least not expanding them. The abject hypocrisy of pro-lifers is really getting rather old. How hard is it to understand that some people think a fetus is a person and abortions are therefor murder? It's very easy to understand. That doesn't make it any less hypocritical. Let's count the reasons: -Aborting a fetus prior to the development of brain activity is functionally identical to taking a braindead person off life support (heartbeat's there, but no brain activity), so anyone taking such a position must also oppose that (which they generally don't) -The fundamental position of "you shouldn't kill fetuses" relies on the presumption that life has inherent value, so anyone taking such a position must also care about the lives of those fetuses after birth (which they generally don't) -Personhood is a legal definition that carries a number of other implications, including the fact that it's illegal to imprison them without cause (so pregnant women couldn't go to jail), the need to pay child support for children (so that would have to start at 6 weeks), the need to investigate every miscarriage and stillbirth as though it were a murder (15-20% of all pregnancies, so another ~380-400 million murder investigations per year in the US, which would be obscenely expensive, to say nothing of the emotional trauma for the women who are already suffering horribly), and many other things that no pro-lifers ever seem to include in their advocacy All this, without ever talking about ways to reduce the number of abortions without having to ban them and infringe on bodily autonomy, such as subsidizing birth control or improving sex ed, which have been demonstrated to be very effective at reducing unwanted pregnancy rates. No, (most) pro-lifers don't care about the fetus as a person. They just want to punish women for having sex, and the pathos-ridden cries of "murder" are an easy way to feel morally superior while doing so. <cite>_AdjI_ posted [p:922095284] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>_AdjI_ posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Its weird. They already have places full of children that need homes. And now they want to fill those places up even more with all these new accidental children... Its just too much...</quote> While also cutting funding for such programs, no less. Or at least not expanding them. The abject hypocrisy of pro-lifers is really getting rather old.</quote> How hard is it to understand that some people think a fetus is a person and abortions are therefor murder?</quote> It's very easy to understand. That doesn't make it any less hypocritical. Let's count the reasons: -Aborting a fetus prior to the development of brain activity is functionally identical to taking a braindead person off life support (heartbeat's there, but no brain activity), so anyone taking such a position must also oppose that (which they generally don't) -The fundamental position of "you shouldn't kill fetuses" relies on the presumption that life has inherent value, so anyone taking such a position must also care about the lives of those fetuses after birth (which they generally don't) -Personhood is a legal definition that carries a number of other implications, including the fact that it's illegal to imprison them without cause (so pregnant women couldn't go to jail), the need to pay child support for children (so that would have to start at 6 weeks), the need to investigate every miscarriage and stillbirth as though it were a murder (15-20% of all pregnancies, so another ~380-400 million murder investigations per year in the US, which would be obscenely expensive, to say nothing of the emotional trauma for the women who are already suffering horribly), and many other things that no pro-lifers ever seem to include in their advocacy All this, without ever talking about ways to reduce the number of abortions without having to ban them and infringe on bodily autonomy, such as subsidizing birth control or improving sex ed, which have been demonstrated to be very effective at reducing unwanted pregnancy rates. No, (most) pro-lifers don't care about the fetus as a person. They just want to punish women for having sex, and the pathos-ridden cries of "murder" are an easy way to feel morally superior while doing so.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyborgSage00x0 05/19/19 12:31:06 PM #156:	Zangulus posted... Wasting taxpayer time and money is the right path. Ok When even Pat Robinson thinks the legislation goes too far... Well Id say you know you done fucked up, but Alabama ranks 50th in education. So I doubt they learned anything from this. Tbf, the only reason Robinson is against it is he knows it is too extreme, even for the conservatives current SC. So if this is the case to hear and they throw it out, there goes another attempt at challenging Roe for like 10 years. --- PotD's resident Film Expert. <cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted [p:922095630] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>Wasting taxpayer time and money is the right path. Ok When even Pat Robinson thinks the legislation goes too far... Well Id say you know you done fucked up, but Alabama ranks 50th in education. So I doubt they learned anything from this.</quote> Tbf, the only reason Robinson is against it is he knows it is too extreme, even for the conservatives current SC. So if this is the case to hear and they throw it out, there goes another attempt at challenging Roe for like 10 years.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 05/19/19 12:46:04 PM #157:	_AdjI_ posted... LinkPizza posted... Its weird. They already have places full of children that need homes. And now they want to fill those places up even more with all these new accidental children... Its just too much... While also cutting funding for such programs, no less. Or at least not expanding them. The abject hypocrisy of pro-lifers is really getting rather old. Which sucks. They already dont have enough money. You want to add more kids they cant afford. Then youll probably end up with more than need special care whether they have a mental disability, or a physical one. But as long as their alive, it doesnt matter. They could be in pain, not getting the help they need, and will possibly die young (and alone), but living an miserable life is much better... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:922096070] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>_AdjI_ posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Its weird. They already have places full of children that need homes. And now they want to fill those places up even more with all these new accidental children... Its just too much...</quote> While also cutting funding for such programs, no less. Or at least not expanding them. The abject hypocrisy of pro-lifers is really getting rather old.</quote> Which sucks. They already dont have enough money. You want to add more kids they cant afford. Then youll probably end up with more than need special care whether they have a mental disability, or a physical one. But as long as their alive, it doesnt matter. They could be in pain, not getting the help they need, and will possibly die young (and alone), but living an miserable life is much better...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_AdjI_ 05/19/19 2:28:11 PM #158:	Hang on, I mathed completely wrong on those miscarriage numbers. Dunno what I was thinking. There were 3.8 million births in the US last year, so ~ 4.5 million pregnancies and therefore ~700,000 miscarriages, which would translate into 700,000 extra murder investigations. Still a massive number, but not 15% greater than the US' current population, which was just a dumb thing to say. My mistake. <cite>_AdjI_ posted [p:922099297] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote>Hang on, I mathed completely wrong on those miscarriage numbers. Dunno what I was thinking. There were 3.8 million births in the US last year, so ~ 4.5 million pregnancies and therefore ~700,000 miscarriages, which would translate into 700,000 extra murder investigations. Still a massive number, but not 15% greater than the US' current population, which was just a dumb thing to say. My mistake.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#159	Post #159 was unavailable or deleted.
CyborgSage00x0 05/19/19 5:15:11 PM #160:	Zangulus posted... CyborgSage00x0 posted... Zangulus posted... Wasting taxpayer time and money is the right path. Ok When even Pat Robinson thinks the legislation goes too far... Well Id say you know you done fucked up, but Alabama ranks 50th in education. So I doubt they learned anything from this. Tbf, the only reason Robinson is against it is he knows it is too extreme, even for the conservatives current SC. So if this is the case to hear and they throw it out, there goes another attempt at challenging Roe for like 10 years. That was exactly my point about Robinson. Got it. --- PotD's resident Film Expert. <cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted [p:922105050] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>Wasting taxpayer time and money is the right path. Ok When even Pat Robinson thinks the legislation goes too far... Well Id say you know you done fucked up, but Alabama ranks 50th in education. So I doubt they learned anything from this.</quote> Tbf, the only reason Robinson is against it is he knows it is too extreme, even for the conservatives current SC. So if this is the case to hear and they throw it out, there goes another attempt at challenging Roe for like 10 years.</quote> That was exactly my point about Robinson.</quote> Got it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ninja_lootz 05/19/19 7:45:08 PM #161:	_AdjI_ posted... -Aborting a fetus prior to the development of brain activity is functionally identical to taking a braindead person off life support (heartbeat's there, but no brain activity), so anyone taking such a position must also oppose that (which they generally don't) It's only identical if you're looking at it in a vacuum. A fetus will, in all likelihood, develop brain activity, while someone who's braindead might never. There's a huge difference in time of care and odds of recovery/development. Decades vs Months -The fundamental position of "you shouldn't kill fetuses" relies on the presumption that life has inherent value, so anyone taking such a position must also care about the lives of those fetuses after birth (which they generally don't) Depends of your idea of what the role of the government is. -Personhood is a legal definition that carries a number of other implications, including the fact that it's illegal to imprison them without cause (so pregnant women couldn't go to jail) The fetus resides within the mother and has no ability to perceive the outside world. This is just a dumb technicality. the need to pay child support for children (so that would have to start at 6 weeks) If abortion were illegal I'd say start it at 0 weeks. You knock a chick up? Start payin. the need to investigate every miscarriage and stillbirth as though it were a murder This is also dumb. There would be medical records documenting most of these cases and States could just require healthcare providers to report such things to the proper authorities. All this, without ever talking about ways to reduce the number of abortions without having to ban them and infringe on bodily autonomy, Again, you are talking about reducing the number of CHILD MURDERS without making them illegal. No. --- MY HELMET'S ON YOU CAN'T TELL ME I'M NOT IN SPACE <cite>ninja_lootz posted [p:922110808] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>_AdjI_ posted...</cite> <quote>-Aborting a fetus prior to the development of brain activity is functionally identical to taking a braindead person off life support (heartbeat's there, but no brain activity), so anyone taking such a position must also oppose that (which they generally don't)</quote> It's only identical if you're looking at it in a vacuum. A fetus will, in all likelihood, develop brain activity, while someone who's braindead might never. There's a huge difference in time of care and odds of recovery/development. Decades vs Months <quote>-The fundamental position of "you shouldn't kill fetuses" relies on the presumption that life has inherent value, so anyone taking such a position must also care about the lives of those fetuses after birth (which they generally don't)</quote> Depends of your idea of what the role of the government is. <quote>-Personhood is a legal definition that carries a number of other implications, including the fact that it's illegal to imprison them without cause (so pregnant women couldn't go to jail)</quote> The fetus resides within the mother and has no ability to perceive the outside world. This is just a dumb technicality. <quote>the need to pay child support for children (so that would have to start at 6 weeks)</quote> If abortion were illegal I'd say start it at 0 weeks. You knock a chick up? Start payin. <quote>the need to investigate every miscarriage and stillbirth as though it were a murder</quote> This is also dumb. There would be medical records documenting most of these cases and States could just require healthcare providers to report such things to the proper authorities. <quote>All this, without ever talking about ways to reduce the number of abortions without having to ban them and infringe on bodily autonomy,</quote> Again, you are talking about reducing the number of CHILD MURDERS without making them illegal. No.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 05/19/19 8:00:00 PM #162:	I am incredibly pro-abortion and this board reinforces my belief every single day I get on here. <cite>Cacciato posted [p:922111407] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote>I am incredibly pro-abortion and this board reinforces my belief every single day I get on here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 05/19/19 8:01:25 PM #163:	How hard is it to understand that some people think a fetus is a person and abortions are therefor murder? So what --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:922111475] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><quote>How hard is it to understand that some people think a fetus is a person and abortions are therefor murder?</quote> So what</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 05/19/19 8:10:37 PM #164:	ninja_lootz posted... If abortion were illegal I'd say start it at 0 weeks. You knock a chick up? Start payin. Thats a pretty dumb outlook on it. But I guess it matches the rest of what youre saying, so... In the end, they could be legally forced to pay until after the child was born. Mainly because they would need to prove who the father was. And then would have to pay back pay... Which could hurt a person financially... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:922111925] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>If abortion were illegal I'd say start it at 0 weeks. You knock a chick up? Start payin.</quote> Thats a pretty dumb outlook on it. But I guess it matches the rest of what youre saying, so... In the end, they could be legally forced to pay until after the child was born. Mainly because they would need to prove who the father was. And then would have to pay back pay... Which could hurt a person financially...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_AdjI_ 05/19/19 8:25:17 PM #165:	ninja_lootz posted... It's only identical if you're looking at it in a vacuum. A fetus will, in all likelihood, develop brain activity, while someone who's braindead might never. There's a huge difference in time of care and odds of recovery/development. Decades vs Months There's also a huge difference in terms of the amount of personal investment. Somebody on life support just sits in a hospital and is taken care of by those staff, while pregnancy is a 24/7 commitment of effort, energy, and personal risk. Fundamentally, though, they're quite comparable, and ultimately boil down to choosing to terminate a life based on predictions about the quality of life they will face if they survive. Being so comparable means it's certainly not a decision to be made lightly, but also that it's a decision that people should be free to make. ninja_lootz posted... Depends of your idea of what the role of the government is. Anyone demanding that abortion be made illegal considers the role of the government to be to punish what they consider to be immoral conduct. At least in this particular situation, anyway, which is where the hypocrisy comes in. Furthermore, the government's role isn't actually relevant. This is a matter of personal beliefs: Believing that every life is inherently valuable from the moment of conception and must be preserved is a belief that can be acted on in far more ways than simply voting for the most anti-abortion candidate. Ergo, not acting on that belief is hypocritical. ninja_lootz posted... The fetus resides within the mother and has no ability to perceive the outside world. This is just a dumb technicality. A technicality which is the sole basis for deciding that abortion is wrong. If a fetus is a person (which is a requirement for considering abortion to be murder), then they must be granted the same rights as other persons. You don't get to pick and choose what "person" means based on what's convenient. ninja_lootz posted... If abortion were illegal I'd say start it at 0 weeks. You knock a chick up? Start payin. I'm glad we agree on that, then. Some nuance is naturally in order, since the costs of raising a child are substantially lower at 0 weeks than after birth, but I wouldn't object to that. ninja_lootz posted... This is also dumb. There would be medical records documenting most of these cases and States could just require healthcare providers to report such things to the proper authorities. In practice, it wouldn't be every single miscarriage that resulted in a full murder investigation, but you're dramatically overestimating how many miscarriages have the medical documentation needed to prove they were spontaneous. You're also ignoring that some of the proposed abortion laws that are circulating these days do explicitly include investigating miscarrying mothers to ensure that they didn't unduly endanger the baby and therefore can't be held responsible for it. We're talking about laws dictating what pregnant women are required to eat, wear, how they get around, where they can go... yes, it is dumb, but that's what has to happen to criminally prosecute abortions. ninja_lootz posted... Again, you are talking about reducing the number of CHILD MURDERS without making them illegal. No. Yes. That is exactly what I'm talking about (though avoiding the term "murder" because that's a legal term which doesn't apply here). In any case, it's better to focus on preventing crimes than punishing them, because preventing them means the crime never happened in the first place. <cite>_AdjI_ posted [p:922112523] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>It's only identical if you're looking at it in a vacuum. A fetus will, in all likelihood, develop brain activity, while someone who's braindead might never. There's a huge difference in time of care and odds of recovery/development. Decades vs Months</quote> There's also a huge difference in terms of the amount of personal investment. Somebody on life support just sits in a hospital and is taken care of by those staff, while pregnancy is a 24/7 commitment of effort, energy, and personal risk. Fundamentally, though, they're quite comparable, and ultimately boil down to choosing to terminate a life based on predictions about the quality of life they will face if they survive. Being so comparable means it's certainly not a decision to be made lightly, but also that it's a decision that people should be free to make. <cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>Depends of your idea of what the role of the government is.</quote> Anyone demanding that abortion be made illegal considers the role of the government to be to punish what they consider to be immoral conduct. At least in this particular situation, anyway, which is where the hypocrisy comes in. Furthermore, the government's role isn't actually relevant. This is a matter of personal beliefs: Believing that every life is inherently valuable from the moment of conception and must be preserved is a belief that can be acted on in far more ways than simply voting for the most anti-abortion candidate. Ergo, not acting on that belief is hypocritical. <cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>The fetus resides within the mother and has no ability to perceive the outside world. This is just a dumb technicality.</quote> A technicality which is the sole basis for deciding that abortion is wrong. If a fetus is a person (which is a requirement for considering abortion to be murder), then they must be granted the same rights as other persons. You don't get to pick and choose what "person" means based on what's convenient. <cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>If abortion were illegal I'd say start it at 0 weeks. You knock a chick up? Start payin.</quote> I'm glad we agree on that, then. Some nuance is naturally in order, since the costs of raising a child are substantially lower at 0 weeks than after birth, but I wouldn't object to that. <cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>This is also dumb. There would be medical records documenting most of these cases and States could just require healthcare providers to report such things to the proper authorities.</quote> In practice, it wouldn't be every single miscarriage that resulted in a full murder investigation, but you're dramatically overestimating how many miscarriages have the medical documentation needed to prove they were spontaneous. You're also ignoring that some of the proposed abortion laws that are circulating these days do explicitly include investigating miscarrying mothers to ensure that they didn't unduly endanger the baby and therefore can't be held responsible for it. We're talking about laws dictating what pregnant women are required to eat, wear, how they get around, where they can go... yes, it is dumb, but that's what has to happen to criminally prosecute abortions. <cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>Again, you are talking about reducing the number of CHILD MURDERS without making them illegal. No.</quote> Yes. That is exactly what I'm talking about (though avoiding the term "murder" because that's a legal term which doesn't apply here). In any case, it's better to focus on preventing crimes than punishing them, because preventing them means the crime never happened in the first place.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ninja_lootz 05/19/19 9:42:38 PM #166:	_AdjI_ posted... There's also a huge difference in terms of the amount of personal investment. Somebody on life support just sits in a hospital and is taken care of by those staff, while pregnancy is a 24/7 commitment of effort, energy, and personal risk. Fundamentally, though, they're quite comparable, and ultimately boil down to choosing to terminate a life based on predictions about the quality of life they will face if they survive. Being so comparable means it's certainly not a decision to be made lightly, but also that it's a decision that people should be free to make. I'd argue the medical costs of keeping someone on life support 24/7 for decades far outweighs any cost of pregnancy. At least in the USA. Also it seems to be more about convenience than quality of life. You have no idea what the fetuses future will be. You can look at statistics and generalize, but I think they deserve a chance regardless and nobody should be able to take that chance away from them. Anyone demanding that abortion be made illegal considers the role of the government to be to punish what they consider to be immoral conduct. At least in this particular situation, anyway, which is where the hypocrisy comes in. Furthermore, the government's role isn't actually relevant. This is a matter of personal beliefs: Believing that every life is inherently valuable from the moment of conception and must be preserved is a belief that can be acted on in far more ways than simply voting for the most anti-abortion candidate. Ergo, not acting on that belief is hypocritical. I'm personally for social programs to help kids, so I can't really argue against this. But I'll just say I think you're over simplifying how people think. I'm glad we agree on that, then. Some nuance is naturally in order, since the costs of raising a child are substantially lower at 0 weeks than after birth, but I wouldn't object to that. Obviously it would start very small, scale up, and then spike at birth. A technicality which is the sole basis for deciding that abortion is wrong. If a fetus is a person (which is a requirement for considering abortion to be murder), then they must be granted the same rights as other persons. You don't get to pick and choose what "person" means based on what's convenient. Well then, technically the baby can't be imprisoned because it never leaves the womb. Or maybe the womb is already a type of prison. Or maybe you're suggesting some kind of artificial womb with iron bars and a sniper to stop it from escaping? In practice, it wouldn't be every single miscarriage that resulted in a full murder investigation, but you're dramatically overestimating how many miscarriages have the medical documentation needed to prove they were spontaneous. I don't think the police would have to personally investigate any miscarriage unless they had reasonable suspicion an abortion happened. And they'd be looking for evidence of an abortion, not a miscarriage. And that would mainly involve investigated said healthcare providers. And I'm tired, so I'm starting sentences with the word "and". In any case, it's better to focus on preventing crimes than punishing them, because preventing them means the crime never happened in the first place. Why not both.jpeg --- MY HELMET'S ON YOU CAN'T TELL ME I'M NOT IN SPACE <cite>ninja_lootz posted [p:922115763] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>_AdjI_ posted...</cite> <quote>There's also a huge difference in terms of the amount of personal investment. Somebody on life support just sits in a hospital and is taken care of by those staff, while pregnancy is a 24/7 commitment of effort, energy, and personal risk. Fundamentally, though, they're quite comparable, and ultimately boil down to choosing to terminate a life based on predictions about the quality of life they will face if they survive. Being so comparable means it's certainly not a decision to be made lightly, but also that it's a decision that people should be free to make.</quote> I'd argue the medical costs of keeping someone on life support 24/7 for decades far outweighs any cost of pregnancy. At least in the USA. Also it seems to be more about convenience than quality of life. You have no idea what the fetuses future will be. You can look at statistics and generalize, but I think they deserve a chance regardless and nobody should be able to take that chance away from them. <quote>Anyone demanding that abortion be made illegal considers the role of the government to be to punish what they consider to be immoral conduct. At least in this particular situation, anyway, which is where the hypocrisy comes in. Furthermore, the government's role isn't actually relevant. This is a matter of personal beliefs: Believing that every life is inherently valuable from the moment of conception and must be preserved is a belief that can be acted on in far more ways than simply voting for the most anti-abortion candidate. Ergo, not acting on that belief is hypocritical.</quote> I'm personally for social programs to help kids, so I can't really argue against this. But I'll just say I think you're over simplifying how people think. <quote>I'm glad we agree on that, then. Some nuance is naturally in order, since the costs of raising a child are substantially lower at 0 weeks than after birth, but I wouldn't object to that.</quote> Obviously it would start very small, scale up, and then spike at birth. <quote>A technicality which is the sole basis for deciding that abortion is wrong. If a fetus is a person (which is a requirement for considering abortion to be murder), then they must be granted the same rights as other persons. You don't get to pick and choose what "person" means based on what's convenient. </quote> Well then, technically the baby can't be imprisoned because it never leaves the womb. Or maybe the womb is already a type of prison. Or maybe you're suggesting some kind of artificial womb with iron bars and a sniper to stop it from escaping? <quote>In practice, it wouldn't be every single miscarriage that resulted in a full murder investigation, but you're dramatically overestimating how many miscarriages have the medical documentation needed to prove they were spontaneous.</quote> I don't think the police would have to personally investigate any miscarriage unless they had reasonable suspicion an abortion happened. And they'd be looking for evidence of an abortion, not a miscarriage. And that would mainly involve investigated said healthcare providers. And I'm tired, so I'm starting sentences with the word "and". <quote> In any case, it's better to focus on preventing crimes than punishing them, because preventing them means the crime never happened in the first place.</quote> Why not both.jpeg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_AdjI_ 05/19/19 10:29:59 PM #167:	ninja_lootz posted... I'd argue the medical costs of keeping someone on life support 24/7 for decades far outweighs any cost of pregnancy. At least in the USA. Pregnancy can kill people. That outweighs pretty much any monetary costs. Regardless of the cost comparison, though, the choice is still available to keep somebody on life support, if one feels capable of or obligated to do so. ninja_lootz posted... Also it seems to be more about convenience than quality of life. You have no idea what the fetuses future will be. It's generally not terribly difficult to figure out whether or not you can afford to give a kid a decent life. If you're struggling to put food on the table for yourself, bringing a kid into the picture isn't a very good idea for either of you. ninja_lootz posted... But I'll just say I think you're over simplifying how people think. Demanding logical consistency in people's beliefs isn't really oversimplifying anything. ninja_lootz posted... Well then, technically the baby can't be imprisoned because it never leaves the womb. If you put a cat in a box, then put that box in another box, the cat is inside both boxes. If you take a person who's inside another person, and put that second person into a cage, you're putting the first person in the cage as well. ninja_lootz posted... I don't think the police would have to personally investigate any miscarriage unless they had reasonable suspicion an abortion happened. No, every miscarriage would have to fall under police scrutiny. It'd be pretty easy to rule out foul play in many cases, but that call would still have to be made every time a miscarriage happened. And, again, making that call would entail examining many details of the woman's life, including diet and activity levels. This isn't a hypothetical scenario, these are provisions that are actually built into some of the new laws being bounced around, despite the blatant invasion of privacy they constitute. ninja_lootz posted... Why not both.jpeg Because the prevention strategies have been well-proven to have a greater effect while not doing anything to infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy. If one strategy has better outcomes and no drawbacks, and the other has numerous drawbacks, employing both strategies is just silly. <cite>_AdjI_ posted [p:922117791] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>I'd argue the medical costs of keeping someone on life support 24/7 for decades far outweighs any cost of pregnancy. At least in the USA.</quote> Pregnancy can kill people. That outweighs pretty much any monetary costs. Regardless of the cost comparison, though, the choice is still available to keep somebody on life support, if one feels capable of or obligated to do so. <cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>Also it seems to be more about convenience than quality of life. You have no idea what the fetuses future will be.</quote> It's generally not terribly difficult to figure out whether or not you can afford to give a kid a decent life. If you're struggling to put food on the table for yourself, bringing a kid into the picture isn't a very good idea for either of you. <cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>But I'll just say I think you're over simplifying how people think.</quote> Demanding logical consistency in people's beliefs isn't really oversimplifying anything. <cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>Well then, technically the baby can't be imprisoned because it never leaves the womb. </quote> If you put a cat in a box, then put that box in another box, the cat is inside both boxes. If you take a person who's inside another person, and put that second person into a cage, you're putting the first person in the cage as well. <cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think the police would have to personally investigate any miscarriage unless they had reasonable suspicion an abortion happened.</quote> No, every miscarriage would have to fall under police scrutiny. It'd be pretty easy to rule out foul play in many cases, but that call would still have to be made every time a miscarriage happened. And, again, making that call would entail examining many details of the woman's life, including diet and activity levels. This isn't a hypothetical scenario, these are provisions that are actually built into some of the new laws being bounced around, despite the blatant invasion of privacy they constitute. <cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote>Why not both.jpeg</quote> Because the prevention strategies have been well-proven to have a greater effect while not doing anything to infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy. If one strategy has better outcomes and no drawbacks, and the other has numerous drawbacks, employing both strategies is just silly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 05/19/19 10:34:50 PM #168:	Historically the future of an unwanted fetus is nearly always a life of poverty, abuse, and crime We have enough people, we arent desperate for more of the damn things --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:922118065] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote>Historically the future of an unwanted fetus is nearly always a life of poverty, abuse, and crime We have enough people, we arent desperate for more of the damn things</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 05/20/19 5:58:34 PM #169:	And none are 100%. So, what happens when they used multiple forms of protection and still got pregnant. Or what happens when the guy slips off the condom without her knowledge and gets her pregnant. Its not always the womens fault. It takes two to make a baby... Those instances are such a rare freak case that it's probably less relevant than the number of people who get hurt from vaccines. Additionally, if a guy did remove the condom there are still things like Plan B which can allow a girl post-sex protection. And why do you assume protection is 100%, anyway? Because based on your post, you seem to think that... Or think that sex should only be used for procreation/reproduction... Why do you seem to assume that it's, like, 50/50 with a 100% chance of getting pregnant if they fail? The whole point of these products is that even 1 of them basically torpedos your chances of an unwanted baby when used properly and it's entirely possible to use multiple. And no. I don't think sex should just be for procreation by any means. It's fun and awesome! Hell, the stuff I've done would leave most women blushing deep red (13 inches insertable length). But that doesn't mean I'm a fool about it. I make sure to understand the risks, dangers, and everything and take the proper precautions. You gonna go do something with handcuffs? Make sure you use either those ice-locks or have a spare key. Gonna use a toy? Read the manual and make sure you know what you're doing. It's all fun and games until you put yourself or your partner in the hospital and have to explain to your hubby that, because you failed to tighten a bolt properly, he might have only one testicle now. I make sure to apply similar levels of protection and precaution there as well. Now that's just weak. Again, if I misinterpret what you say, you're more than welcome to correct me and clarify. Simple. Women have lots of rights. Many of those rights ensure her ability to use protection as well as engage in the act without being run out of town and called a witch or drowned for infidelity or something like that. Now they want the right to kill an unborn child simply because they were being lazy and pathetic. This isn't like women being sold to people for the sake of being concubines (that's ACTUALLY not having a right to your body!) or not being able to work or vote or something. This is people being lazy, irresponsible, and entitled. Hypothetically, if one day, you find a woman who has sex with you and 9 months later you receive package and letter (along with a little song and dance routine). Explaining that you are now the proud owner of 1 (or more) screaming little shit manufactory. Congratulations your life is now ruined! I went and asked every guy I know what they'd do in this situation. The responses were, understandibly, mixed a bit but quite a few said they'd be estatic to find out that, not only are they the father, but they get to raise and spend time with the kid instead of having to pay support and only getting to see them rarely. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:922151982] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote>And none are 100%. So, what happens when they used multiple forms of protection and still got pregnant. Or what happens when the guy slips off the condom without her knowledge and gets her pregnant. Its not always the womens fault. It takes two to make a baby... Those instances are such a rare freak case that it's probably less relevant than the number of people who get hurt from vaccines. Additionally, if a guy did remove the condom there are still things like Plan B which can allow a girl post-sex protection. And why do you assume protection is 100%, anyway? Because based on your post, you seem to think that... Or think that sex should only be used for procreation/reproduction... Why do you seem to assume that it's, like, 50/50 with a 100% chance of getting pregnant if they fail? The whole point of these products is that even 1 of them basically torpedos your chances of an unwanted baby when used properly and it's entirely possible to use multiple. And no. I don't think sex should just be for procreation by any means. It's fun and awesome! Hell, the stuff I've done would leave most women blushing deep red (13 inches insertable length). But that doesn't mean I'm a fool about it. I make sure to understand the risks, dangers, and everything and take the proper precautions. You gonna go do something with handcuffs? Make sure you use either those ice-locks or have a spare key. Gonna use a toy? Read the manual and make sure you know what you're doing. It's all fun and games until you put yourself or your partner in the hospital and have to explain to your hubby that, because you failed to tighten a bolt properly, he might have only one testicle now. I make sure to apply similar levels of protection and precaution there as well. Now that's just weak. Again, if I misinterpret what you say, you're more than welcome to correct me and clarify. Simple. Women have lots of rights. Many of those rights ensure her ability to use protection as well as engage in the act without being run out of town and called a witch or drowned for infidelity or something like that. Now they want the right to kill an unborn child simply because they were being lazy and pathetic. This isn't like women being sold to people for the sake of being concubines (that's ACTUALLY not having a right to your body!) or not being able to work or vote or something. This is people being lazy, irresponsible, and entitled. Hypothetically, if one day, you find a woman who has sex with you and 9 months later you receive package and letter (along with a little song and dance routine). Explaining that you are now the proud owner of 1 (or more) screaming little shit manufactory. Congratulations your life is now ruined! I went and asked every guy I know what they'd do in this situation. The responses were, understandibly, mixed a bit but quite a few said they'd be estatic to find out that, not only are they the father, but they get to raise and spend time with the kid instead of having to pay support and only getting to see them rarely.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 05/20/19 6:05:48 PM #170:	I dont assume its 50/50. But I know thats shit happens. I dont think its as rare as you think. Even on base, I know plenty of guys that had a child while using protection. And friends from school. Shot happens. Especially when you have sex a lot with the same person. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:922152237] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote>I dont assume its 50/50. But I know thats shit happens. I dont think its as rare as you think. Even on base, I know plenty of guys that had a child while using protection. And friends from school. Shot happens. Especially when you have sex a lot with the same person.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 05/20/19 6:08:30 PM #171:	Unbridled9 posted... I went and asked every guy I know what they'd do in this situation. The responses were, understandibly, mixed a bit but quite a few said they'd be estatic to find out that, not only are they the father, but they get to raise and spend time with the kid instead of having to pay support and only getting to see them rarely. That depends on if the other person wants to be with them. If you arent together with the other person, you could still end up paying child support. Even if you spend a lot of time with them. Unless you get custody of them. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:922152353] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>I went and asked every guy I know what they'd do in this situation. The responses were, understandibly, mixed a bit but quite a few said they'd be estatic to find out that, not only are they the father, but they get to raise and spend time with the kid instead of having to pay support and only getting to see them rarely.</quote> That depends on if the other person wants to be with them. If you arent together with the other person, you could still end up paying child support. Even if you spend a lot of time with them. Unless you get custody of them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 05/20/19 6:54:40 PM #172:	A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:922154063] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 05/20/19 8:28:16 PM #173:	OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:922157675] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 05/20/19 8:37:29 PM #174:	BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:922158045] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 05/20/19 8:38:37 PM #175:	OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:922158100] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 05/20/19 8:56:47 PM #176:	BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. So you're setting your own limit on how much brain activity is enough brain activity because you're the morality arbiter? <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:922158907] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> So you're setting your own limit on how much brain activity is enough brain activity because you're the morality arbiter?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 05/20/19 9:11:05 PM #177:	OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. So you're setting your own limit on how much brain activity is enough brain activity because you're the morality arbiter? No, I'm not even discussing that. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:922159514] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> So you're setting your own limit on how much brain activity is enough brain activity because you're the morality arbiter?</quote> No, I'm not even discussing that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 05/20/19 9:22:30 PM #178:	BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. So you're setting your own limit on how much brain activity is enough brain activity because you're the morality arbiter? No, I'm not even discussing that. I believe hes just saying based on everything, the fetus wouldnt be able to live outside of its host at that age. So, you should be able to abort said fetus... Maybe? --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:922159943] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> So you're setting your own limit on how much brain activity is enough brain activity because you're the morality arbiter?</quote> No, I'm not even discussing that.</quote> I believe hes just saying based on everything, the fetus wouldnt be able to live outside of its host at that age. So, you should be able to abort said fetus... Maybe?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ninja_lootz 05/20/19 10:25:07 PM #179:	BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me. --- MY HELMET'S ON YOU CAN'T TELL ME I'M NOT IN SPACE <cite>ninja_lootz posted [p:922162721] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 05/20/19 10:29:15 PM #180:	ninja_lootz posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me. How is that arbitrary? <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:922162908] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me.</quote> How is that arbitrary?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth 05/20/19 10:36:45 PM #181:	TC should have aborted this thread before hitting post. --- It's okay, I have no idea who I am either. https://imgur.com/WOo6wcq <cite>Zareth posted [p:922163227] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote>TC should have aborted this thread before hitting post.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ninja_lootz 05/20/19 10:37:23 PM #182:	BlackScythe0 posted... ninja_lootz posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me. How is that arbitrary? Wouldn't it's survival depend on the medical technology available? --- MY HELMET'S ON YOU CAN'T TELL ME I'M NOT IN SPACE <cite>ninja_lootz posted [p:922163249] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me.</quote> How is that arbitrary?</quote> Wouldn't it's survival depend on the medical technology available?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 05/20/19 10:38:00 PM #183:	ninja_lootz posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me. I think it has something to do with Fetal Viability. --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:922163271] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me.</quote> I think it has something to do with Fetal Viability.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 05/20/19 10:38:46 PM #184:	ninja_lootz posted... BlackScythe0 posted... ninja_lootz posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me. How is that arbitrary? Wouldn't it's survival depend on the medical technology available? I'm not a medical expert but my limited knowledge tells me we aren't near the point where that is a relevant argument. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:922163297] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me.</quote> How is that arbitrary?</quote> Wouldn't it's survival depend on the medical technology available?</quote> I'm not a medical expert but my limited knowledge tells me we aren't near the point where that is a relevant argument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_AdjI_ 05/20/19 10:47:38 PM #185:	Unbridled9 posted... Those instances are such a rare freak case that it's probably less relevant than the number of people who get hurt from vaccines. To my knowledge, the most effective form of non-surgical birth control (abstinence excepted, obviously) is a hormonal IUD, at 99.8% effective. That means that, out of every 1000 sexually active women exclusively using a hormonal IUD, you're going to see two pregnancies per year. Copper IUD's are around 99.2% with typical use (i.e. not doing a string check every single time). The pill is lower than that. Condoms are a pitiful 85% with typical use, and only 98% if used perfectly (which basically means inspecting it after use to ensure it's still perfectly watertight). And most of those failures wouldn't become apparent until a missed period prompted a pregnancy test, which is going to be well outside of the 4-day window for ECP's (which are themselves only 98% effective). Those aren't "rare freak cases." They're certainly the minority compared to the number of people using contraception that don't end up pregnant, but those failure rates are still non-negligible. Ergo, neglecting them is wrong. Unbridled9 posted... Simple. Women have lots of rights. Many of those rights ensure her ability to use protection as well as engage in the act without being run out of town and called a witch or drowned for infidelity or something like that. Now they want the right to kill an unborn child simply because they were being lazy and pathetic. This isn't like women being sold to people for the sake of being concubines (that's ACTUALLY not having a right to your body!) or not being able to work or vote or something. This is people being lazy, irresponsible, and entitled. So... you're setting an arbitrary limit on the number of rights women need, based on the fact that you don't feel like this is a sufficiently severe infringement of bodily autonomy and that you feel they deserve to have that right infringed for their irresponsibility (see above for the statistics on how reasonable that attitude is). You're not exactly convincing me that I got it wrong. Let's try a little thought experiment: You and your hypothetical life partner successfully make a baby. The pregnancy goes fine, and you're all set to start raising it. But then when it's born, you discover that it has a rare genetic disorder that means it will die if it doesn't receive a unit of whole blood from you (and only you, because hypothetical histocompatibility reasons) every six weeks (donations are only accepted every eight weeks to give the body time to recover, so six will be very taxing and require nutritional supplementation). Should you be legally required to provide your child with that blood? Should you face jail time if you refuse or become incapable of doing it because you haven't kept yourself healthy enough? Based on the attitudes you've expressed here, I'm going to assume that you would want to do it, but that's not the issue at hand here. Do you think that legally forcing you to give blood - faster than your body is naturally able to replenish it, no less - for the sake of your child would be reasonable and not infringe on your rights to bodily autonomy? OhhhJa posted... So you're setting your own limit on how much brain activity is enough brain activity because you're the morality arbiter? Does that not happen every single day in declaring people to be brain dead? <cite>_AdjI_ posted [p:922163666] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Those instances are such a rare freak case that it's probably less relevant than the number of people who get hurt from vaccines.</quote> To my knowledge, the most effective form of non-surgical birth control (abstinence excepted, obviously) is a hormonal IUD, at 99.8% effective. That means that, out of every 1000 sexually active women exclusively using a hormonal IUD, you're going to see two pregnancies per year. Copper IUD's are around 99.2% with typical use (i.e. not doing a string check every single time). The pill is lower than that. Condoms are a pitiful 85% with typical use, and only 98% if used perfectly (which basically means inspecting it after use to ensure it's still perfectly watertight). And most of those failures wouldn't become apparent until a missed period prompted a pregnancy test, which is going to be well outside of the 4-day window for ECP's (which are themselves only 98% effective). Those aren't "rare freak cases." They're certainly the minority compared to the number of people using contraception that don't end up pregnant, but those failure rates are still non-negligible. Ergo, neglecting them is wrong. <cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Simple. Women have lots of rights. Many of those rights ensure her ability to use protection as well as engage in the act without being run out of town and called a witch or drowned for infidelity or something like that. Now they want the right to kill an unborn child simply because they were being lazy and pathetic. This isn't like women being sold to people for the sake of being concubines (that's ACTUALLY not having a right to your body!) or not being able to work or vote or something. This is people being lazy, irresponsible, and entitled. </quote> So... you're setting an arbitrary limit on the number of rights women need, based on the fact that you don't feel like this is a sufficiently severe infringement of bodily autonomy and that you feel they deserve to have that right infringed for their irresponsibility (see above for the statistics on how reasonable that attitude is). You're not exactly convincing me that I got it wrong. Let's try a little thought experiment: You and your hypothetical life partner successfully make a baby. The pregnancy goes fine, and you're all set to start raising it. But then when it's born, you discover that it has a rare genetic disorder that means it will die if it doesn't receive a unit of whole blood from you (and only you, because hypothetical histocompatibility reasons) every six weeks (donations are only accepted every eight weeks to give the body time to recover, so six will be very taxing and require nutritional supplementation). Should you be legally required to provide your child with that blood? Should you face jail time if you refuse or become incapable of doing it because you haven't kept yourself healthy enough? Based on the attitudes you've expressed here, I'm going to assume that you would want to do it, but that's not the issue at hand here. Do you think that legally forcing you to give blood - faster than your body is naturally able to replenish it, no less - for the sake of your child would be reasonable and not infringe on your rights to bodily autonomy? <cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>So you're setting your own limit on how much brain activity is enough brain activity because you're the morality arbiter?</quote> Does that not happen every single day in declaring people to be brain dead?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 05/21/19 12:32:47 AM #186:	So... you're setting an arbitrary limit on the number of rights women need, based on the fact that you don't feel like this is a sufficiently severe infringement of bodily autonomy and that you feel they deserve to have that right infringed for their irresponsibility (see above for the statistics on how reasonable that attitude is). You're not exactly convincing me that I got it wrong. You're not convincing me you're not just reading whatever you want from it. I may as well write 'Blippity Bloppity baugette' at this point since you'll probably deduce some hidden agenda to turn all girls into milk cows from it. Should you be legally required to provide your child with that blood? Sounds like that, in this situation, you're putting me in a position where either my child dies due to blood issues or I die and/or suffer immensely from a lack of blood for the rest of my life. Then hoping I'd opt for killing the child (one that's born in this case meaning it's unambigiously murder) and then acting like a parent facing unquestionably one of the hardest decisions around in which they may have the end the life of someone that they love and will likely have to struggle with whatever decision they made for the rest of their life is in the same league as a dumb 18 year old getting drunk off her ass and knocked up by the college football team and wanting to get the abortion so she doesn't get shamed on facebook. If a child has some sort of rare disorder like this and if the decision to abort it is made you can bet the scenario isn't 'dumb girl being an irresponsible **' and more of 'hopeful parent facing heartwrenching decision'. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:922167448] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote>So... you're setting an arbitrary limit on the number of rights women need, based on the fact that you don't feel like this is a sufficiently severe infringement of bodily autonomy and that you feel they deserve to have that right infringed for their irresponsibility (see above for the statistics on how reasonable that attitude is). You're not exactly convincing me that I got it wrong. You're not convincing me you're not just reading whatever you want from it. I may as well write 'Blippity Bloppity baugette' at this point since you'll probably deduce some hidden agenda to turn all girls into milk cows from it. Should you be legally required to provide your child with that blood? Sounds like that, in this situation, you're putting me in a position where either my child dies due to blood issues or I die and/or suffer immensely from a lack of blood for the rest of my life. Then hoping I'd opt for killing the child (one that's born in this case meaning it's unambigiously murder) and then acting like a parent facing unquestionably one of the hardest decisions around in which they may have the end the life of someone that they love and will likely have to struggle with whatever decision they made for the rest of their life is in the same league as a dumb 18 year old getting drunk off her ass and knocked up by the college football team and wanting to get the abortion so she doesn't get shamed on facebook. If a child has some sort of rare disorder like this and if the decision to abort it is made you can bet the scenario isn't 'dumb girl being an irresponsible ***' and more of 'hopeful parent facing heartwrenching decision'.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 05/21/19 12:38:17 AM #187:	Unbridled9 posted... So... you're setting an arbitrary limit on the number of rights women need, based on the fact that you don't feel like this is a sufficiently severe infringement of bodily autonomy and that you feel they deserve to have that right infringed for their irresponsibility (see above for the statistics on how reasonable that attitude is). You're not exactly convincing me that I got it wrong. You're not convincing me you're not just reading whatever you want from it. I may as well write 'Blippity Bloppity baugette' at this point since you'll probably deduce some hidden agenda to turn all girls into milk cows from it. Should you be legally required to provide your child with that blood? Sounds like that, in this situation, you're putting me in a position where either my child dies due to blood issues or I die and/or suffer immensely from a lack of blood for the rest of my life. Then hoping I'd opt for killing the child (one that's born in this case meaning it's unambigiously murder) and then acting like a parent facing unquestionably one of the hardest decisions around in which they may have the end the life of someone that they love and will likely have to struggle with whatever decision they made for the rest of their life is in the same league as a dumb 18 year old getting drunk off her ass and knocked up by the college football team and wanting to get the abortion so she doesn't get shamed on facebook. If a child has some sort of rare disorder like this and if the decision to abort it is made you can bet the scenario isn't 'dumb girl being an irresponsible **' and more of 'hopeful parent facing heartwrenching decision'. I think hes asking should you be forced to give up the blood. And if you dont, do you think you should go to jail for it. You changed the question. Is about the rights to your own body. Do you think its fair that you have to give up the rights to your body and be forced to give blood to your child? And if you refuse, you go to jail and such... I think thats whats he trying to get at. Also, you like to mention only dumb 18 year olds getting drunk and knocked up or situations like that like its the only people who get abortions. It could could be responsible people who just had an accident during sex... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:922167654] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>So... you're setting an arbitrary limit on the number of rights women need, based on the fact that you don't feel like this is a sufficiently severe infringement of bodily autonomy and that you feel they deserve to have that right infringed for their irresponsibility (see above for the statistics on how reasonable that attitude is). You're not exactly convincing me that I got it wrong. You're not convincing me you're not just reading whatever you want from it. I may as well write 'Blippity Bloppity baugette' at this point since you'll probably deduce some hidden agenda to turn all girls into milk cows from it. Should you be legally required to provide your child with that blood? Sounds like that, in this situation, you're putting me in a position where either my child dies due to blood issues or I die and/or suffer immensely from a lack of blood for the rest of my life. Then hoping I'd opt for killing the child (one that's born in this case meaning it's unambigiously murder) and then acting like a parent facing unquestionably one of the hardest decisions around in which they may have the end the life of someone that they love and will likely have to struggle with whatever decision they made for the rest of their life is in the same league as a dumb 18 year old getting drunk off her ass and knocked up by the college football team and wanting to get the abortion so she doesn't get shamed on facebook. If a child has some sort of rare disorder like this and if the decision to abort it is made you can bet the scenario isn't 'dumb girl being an irresponsible **' and more of 'hopeful parent facing heartwrenching decision'.</quote> I think hes asking should you be forced to give up the blood. And if you dont, do you think you should go to jail for it. You changed the question. Is about the rights to your own body. Do you think its fair that you have to give up the rights to your body and be forced to give blood to your child? And if you refuse, you go to jail and such... I think thats whats he trying to get at. Also, you like to mention only dumb 18 year olds getting drunk and knocked up or situations like that like its the only people who get abortions. It could could be responsible people who just had an accident during sex...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HornedLion 05/21/19 12:45:36 AM #188:	Conservatives looooove babies from conception to 9 months gestation. But after theyre on their own. No healthcare, no real education, no assistance of any kind. And if their ailments, lack of a proper education and structure, and neglect leads them down a dark path... then those conservatives are 100% okay with killing that grown up baby. --- :) <cite>HornedLion posted [p:922167879] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote>Conservatives looooove babies from conception to 9 months gestation. But after theyre on their own. No healthcare, no real education, no assistance of any kind. And if their ailments, lack of a proper education and structure, and neglect leads them down a dark path... then those conservatives are 100% okay with killing that grown up baby.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_AdjI_ 05/21/19 9:48:31 AM #189:	Unbridled9 posted... You're not convincing me you're not just reading whatever you want from it. I may as well write 'Blippity Bloppity baugette' at this point since you'll probably deduce some hidden agenda to turn all girls into milk cows from it. Do you or do you not believe that there's a point where it becomes reasonable to ignore the right to bodily autonomy and force somebody to use their body in a certain way? Based on what you're saying, the answer to that question seems to be yes. Unbridled9 posted... Sounds like that, in this situation, you're putting me in a position where either my child dies due to blood issues or I die and/or suffer immensely from a lack of blood for the rest of my life. Then hoping I'd opt for killing the child (one that's born in this case meaning it's unambigiously murder) and then acting like a parent facing unquestionably one of the hardest decisions around in which they may have the end the life of someone that they love and will likely have to struggle with whatever decision they made for the rest of their life is in the same league as a dumb 18 year old getting drunk off her ass and knocked up by the college football team and wanting to get the abortion so she doesn't get shamed on facebook. If a child has some sort of rare disorder like this and if the decision to abort it is made you can bet the scenario isn't 'dumb girl being an irresponsible **' and more of 'hopeful parent facing heartwrenching decision'. I explicitly said that I'm not asking what you'd want to do. I'm asking if you feel you should be legally required to do it. <cite>_AdjI_ posted [p:922177716] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>You're not convincing me you're not just reading whatever you want from it. I may as well write 'Blippity Bloppity baugette' at this point since you'll probably deduce some hidden agenda to turn all girls into milk cows from it.</quote> Do you or do you not believe that there's a point where it becomes reasonable to ignore the right to bodily autonomy and force somebody to use their body in a certain way? Based on what you're saying, the answer to that question seems to be yes. <cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Sounds like that, in this situation, you're putting me in a position where either my child dies due to blood issues or I die and/or suffer immensely from a lack of blood for the rest of my life. Then hoping I'd opt for killing the child (one that's born in this case meaning it's unambigiously murder) and then acting like a parent facing unquestionably one of the hardest decisions around in which they may have the end the life of someone that they love and will likely have to struggle with whatever decision they made for the rest of their life is in the same league as a dumb 18 year old getting drunk off her ass and knocked up by the college football team and wanting to get the abortion so she doesn't get shamed on facebook. If a child has some sort of rare disorder like this and if the decision to abort it is made you can bet the scenario isn't 'dumb girl being an irresponsible **' and more of 'hopeful parent facing heartwrenching decision'.</quote> I explicitly said that I'm not asking what you'd want to do. I'm asking if you feel you should be legally required to do it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 05/21/19 9:59:53 AM #190:	HornedLion posted... Conservatives looooove babies from conception to 9 months gestation. But after theyre on their own. No healthcare, no real education, no assistance of any kind. Just to be devils advocate: Liberals looooove diverting all personal responsibility on to the government, whether that's paying for food, medicine, education, daycare, etc. The right believes government shouldn't interject and allow people to make their own choices regardless of whether they're good or bad. The left believes government should regulate and fund any and all services to give everyone access regardless of whether the government is actually capable or competent enough to provide it properly. A sane person lives somewhere between. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:922177983] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>HornedLion posted...</cite> <quote>Conservatives looooove babies from conception to 9 months gestation. But after theyre on their own. No healthcare, no real education, no assistance of any kind. </quote> Just to be devils advocate: Liberals looooove diverting all personal responsibility on to the government, whether that's paying for food, medicine, education, daycare, etc. The right believes government shouldn't interject and allow people to make their own choices regardless of whether they're good or bad. The left believes government should regulate and fund any and all services to give everyone access regardless of whether the government is actually capable or competent enough to provide it properly. A sane person lives somewhere between.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
catatonia 05/21/19 10:06:35 AM #191:	Kyuubi4269 posted... HornedLion posted... Conservatives looooove babies from conception to 9 months gestation. But after theyre on their own. No healthcare, no real education, no assistance of any kind. Just to be devils advocate: Liberals looooove diverting all personal responsibility on to the government, whether that's paying for food, medicine, education, daycare, etc. The right believes government shouldn't interject and allow people to make their own choices regardless of whether they're good or bad. The left believes government should regulate and fund any and all services to give everyone access regardless of whether the government is actually capable or competent enough to provide it properly. A sane person lives somewhere between. The right loves to let people make their own choices. Except for the very nature of this topic were people cant make their own choices. --- Zangulus has been a naughty boy. <cite>catatonia posted [p:922178187] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>HornedLion posted...</cite> <quote>Conservatives looooove babies from conception to 9 months gestation. But after theyre on their own. No healthcare, no real education, no assistance of any kind. </quote> Just to be devils advocate: Liberals looooove diverting all personal responsibility on to the government, whether that's paying for food, medicine, education, daycare, etc. The right believes government shouldn't interject and allow people to make their own choices regardless of whether they're good or bad. The left believes government should regulate and fund any and all services to give everyone access regardless of whether the government is actually capable or competent enough to provide it properly. A sane person lives somewhere between.</quote> The right loves to let people make their own choices. Except for the very nature of this topic were people cant make their own choices.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 05/21/19 10:07:03 AM #192:	LinkPizza posted... ninja_lootz posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me. I think it has something to do with Fetal Viability. A baby might not be able to live outside the womb at 6 or 7 months either so by his logic third trimester abortions should be ok <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:922178198] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me.</quote> I think it has something to do with Fetal Viability.</quote> A baby might not be able to live outside the womb at 6 or 7 months either so by his logic third trimester abortions should be ok</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 05/21/19 10:14:04 AM #193:	catatonia posted... The right loves to let people make their own choices. Except for the very nature of this topic were people cant make their own choices. The left loves to let people make their own choices. Except for when it comes to gun ownership, what you can or csnt say, and what content you should be allowed to watch <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:922178410] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>catatonia posted...</cite> <quote>The right loves to let people make their own choices. Except for the very nature of this topic were people cant make their own choices.</quote> The left loves to let people make their own choices. Except for when it comes to gun ownership, what you can or csnt say, and what content you should be allowed to watch</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
catatonia 05/21/19 10:27:42 AM #194:	OhhhJa posted... catatonia posted... The right loves to let people make their own choices. Except for the very nature of this topic were people cant make their own choices. The left loves to let people make their own choices. Except for when it comes to gun ownership, what you can or csnt say, and what content you should be allowed to watch Oh hey. Good thing I said something contrary to that. Oh wait. I had a specific and very targeted point... --- Zangulus has been a naughty boy. <cite>catatonia posted [p:922178795] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>catatonia posted...</cite> <quote>The right loves to let people make their own choices. Except for the very nature of this topic were people cant make their own choices.</quote> The left loves to let people make their own choices. Except for when it comes to gun ownership, what you can or csnt say, and what content you should be allowed to watch</quote> Oh hey. Good thing I said something contrary to that. Oh wait. I had a specific and very targeted point...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 05/21/19 11:13:16 AM #195:	_AdjI_ posted... Do you or do you not believe that there's a point where it becomes reasonable to ignore the right to bodily autonomy and force somebody to use their body in a certain way? Based on what you're saying, the answer to that question seems to be yes. You are expected to surrender autonomy to survive so the government already doesn't completely protect bodily autonomy. The question is always what the reasonable boundary is. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:922180280] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>_AdjI_ posted...</cite> <quote>Do you or do you not believe that there's a point where it becomes reasonable to ignore the right to bodily autonomy and force somebody to use their body in a certain way? Based on what you're saying, the answer to that question seems to be yes.</quote> You are expected to surrender autonomy to survive so the government already doesn't completely protect bodily autonomy. The question is always what the reasonable boundary is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 05/21/19 11:20:01 AM #196:	catatonia posted... The right loves to let people make their own choices. Except for the very nature of this topic were people cant make their own choices. Not a right wing policy, but rather a US republican(theocrat) policy. The right is obsessed with personal freedoms. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:922180490] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>catatonia posted...</cite> <quote>The right loves to let people make their own choices. Except for the very nature of this topic were people cant make their own choices.</quote> Not a right wing policy, but rather a US republican(theocrat) policy. The right is obsessed with personal freedoms.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 05/21/19 12:31:56 PM #197:	OhhhJa posted... LinkPizza posted... ninja_lootz posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... BlackScythe0 posted... OhhhJa posted... A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out. Do you not see how that is a terrible argument? I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters. Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me. I think it has something to do with Fetal Viability. A baby might not be able to live outside the womb at 6 or 7 months either so by his logic third trimester abortions should be ok The point is, it actually has a chance around 24 weeks. I think its starts getting chance around 22 weeks. The chances are around 0%-10%. But it has a small chance. Anything before that, the chance are slim enough that it would be a miracle for it to survive in its own. A baby might not live at 6 or 7 mouths. But they could have an issue right before being born, as well. The fetal viability is saying whether it actually has a chance (other than a miracle) to survive... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:922183134] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ninja_lootz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>A fetus starts developing brain activity during the third week of pregnancy. You can try and justify it all you want but if you abort even just a few weeks beyond that, I'd say that's bordering on murder barring medical circumstances that could cause the mother harm</quote> Lets induce labor at the third week and see how that works out.</quote> Do you not see how that is a terrible argument?</quote> I can't see how it's not the only argument that matters.</quote> Care to explain why surviving outside the womb matters at all? Seems completely arbitrary to me.</quote> I think it has something to do with Fetal Viability.</quote> A baby might not be able to live outside the womb at 6 or 7 months either so by his logic third trimester abortions should be ok</quote> The point is, it actually has a chance around 24 weeks. I think its starts getting chance around 22 weeks. The chances are around 0%-10%. But it has a small chance. Anything before that, the chance are slim enough that it would be a miracle for it to survive in its own. A baby might not live at 6 or 7 mouths. But they could have an issue right before being born, as well. The fetal viability is saying whether it actually has a chance (other than a miracle) to survive...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 05/21/19 12:49:07 PM #198:	The point is, it actually has a chance around 24 weeks. I think its starts getting chance around 22 weeks. The chances are around 0%-10%. But it has a small chance. Anything before that, the chance are slim enough that it would be a miracle for it to survive in its own. A baby might not live at 6 or 7 mouths. But they could have an issue right before being born, as well. The fetal viability is saying whether it actually has a chance (other than a miracle) to survive... And I still think it's a dumb argument to make. Brain activity is brain activity. Sure I dont think a fetus at three weeks is capable of complex emotions but where do you really draw the line on that. Who gets to be the judge of where to draw that line? <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:922183784] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><quote>The point is, it actually has a chance around 24 weeks. I think its starts getting chance around 22 weeks. The chances are around 0%-10%. But it has a small chance. Anything before that, the chance are slim enough that it would be a miracle for it to survive in its own. A baby might not live at 6 or 7 mouths. But they could have an issue right before being born, as well. The fetal viability is saying whether it actually has a chance (other than a miracle) to survive...</quote> And I still think it's a dumb argument to make. Brain activity is brain activity. Sure I dont think a fetus at three weeks is capable of complex emotions but where do you really draw the line on that. Who gets to be the judge of where to draw that line?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 05/21/19 1:30:30 PM #199:	OhhhJa posted... The point is, it actually has a chance around 24 weeks. I think its starts getting chance around 22 weeks. The chances are around 0%-10%. But it has a small chance. Anything before that, the chance are slim enough that it would be a miracle for it to survive in its own. A baby might not live at 6 or 7 mouths. But they could have an issue right before being born, as well. The fetal viability is saying whether it actually has a chance (other than a miracle) to survive... And I still think it's a dumb argument to make. Brain activity is brain activity. Sure I dont think a fetus at three weeks is capable of complex emotions but where do you really draw the line on that. Who gets to be the judge of where to draw that line? Thats the problem. Where to draw the line? I think a lone should be drawn. Maybe it should be drawn where the fetus is viable to live outside the womb on its own... Idk... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:922185385] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><quote>The point is, it actually has a chance around 24 weeks. I think its starts getting chance around 22 weeks. The chances are around 0%-10%. But it has a small chance. Anything before that, the chance are slim enough that it would be a miracle for it to survive in its own. A baby might not live at 6 or 7 mouths. But they could have an issue right before being born, as well. The fetal viability is saying whether it actually has a chance (other than a miracle) to survive...</quote> And I still think it's a dumb argument to make. Brain activity is brain activity. Sure I dont think a fetus at three weeks is capable of complex emotions but where do you really draw the line on that. Who gets to be the judge of where to draw that line?</quote> Thats the problem. Where to draw the line? I think a lone should be drawn. Maybe it should be drawn where the fetus is viable to live outside the womb on its own... Idk...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 05/21/19 1:36:22 PM #200:	OhhhJa posted... Brain activity is brain activity. Sure I dont think a fetus at three weeks is capable of complex emotions but where do you really draw the line on that. Who gets to be the judge of where to draw that line? A dog has brain activity, you can still put it down because your new places doesn't allow dogs. I thought we did a pretty good job allowing doctors to determine it. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:922185610] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Brain activity is brain activity. Sure I dont think a fetus at three weeks is capable of complex emotions but where do you really draw the line on that. Who gets to be the judge of where to draw that line?</quote> A dog has brain activity, you can still put it down because your new places doesn't allow dogs. I thought we did a pretty good job allowing doctors to determine it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 05/21/19 1:39:24 PM #201:	Third trimester is the cutoff point. Dont like that? Dont get an abortion then and shut up. The end. --- If they drag you through the mud, it doesnt change whats in your blood <cite>Mead posted [p:922185751] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote>Third trimester is the cutoff point. Dont like that? Dont get an abortion then and shut up. The end.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wwinterj25 05/21/19 1:44:58 PM #202:	Zangulus posted... Nope. It only has an exception for danger to the mothers life. So they can't get a abortion at all unless in that case? That doesn't seem right. I guess more illegal abortions will happen in that state then. Although maybe they could go to another state to get it done. --- One who knows nothing can understand nothing. http://psnprofiles.com/wwinterj - https://imgur.com/kDysIcd <cite>wwinterj25 posted [p:922185995] in Why are pe... [t:77719119]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>Nope. It only has an exception for danger to the mothers life.</quote> So they can't get a abortion at all unless in that case? That doesn't seem right. I guess more illegal abortions will happen in that state then. Although maybe they could go to another state to get it done. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Poll of the Day > Why are people freaking out over Alabama? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Why are people freaking out over Alabama?