You mainly need to worry when a girl accuses you of making her pregnant.I've been trying to stay out of this one. While there are some people on here that I really like to engage (dank, eski, a couple others), it's just destined to turn into a insult and scoff-fest.
Here goes a few cents anyways.
1 the acorn analogy. I think it's technically accurate, and if we were dealing with any animal other than a human it would be air tight. It does break down rather quickly the further along a pregnancy is though. At some point, the difference between a baby with personal rights and a fetus with none is ONLY a matter of geography. At that point, the analogy would be more like saying "that's not a bomb, stupid, it's wrapped up in a Christmas box". It will explode when the timer goes off no matter if it has been unwrapped yet or not, its intended function does not change. In ultra late-term abortions (as rare as they may be), it really is the perfect example of "a rose by any other name..." baby, fetus.
2. The mother's right (this is why I quoted you, possum)
The argument falls short in a few instances. First, there's the same thing you've heard a million times, that we have to consider that there is more than one life involved in the decision. This leads back to personhood, another debate but one I would caution extreme care on because those rights are being decided by politicians, who never DON'T have an agenda. At the very least it shouldn't be flippant in discussions.
Second, the idea of the baby's life vs the mother's slavery. The argument that people always have control over their bodies just isn't true. If you chance breaking the law, for instance, you might have to go to prison. You can't abort your prison term on the grounds that it isn't fair to take away your control. Likewise, if you choose to have sex, you know the risks of becoming pregnant. In the same way that some think it's 'unfair' for a mother to be forced to have another person in her body living off her, the fetus didn't ask for its tenure there, nor is it responsible in any way for being there. Actually, it's extremely cold to me to distil the mother/baby relationship to that of parasite/host, and I think it's an indicator of our uneasiness about the whole thing that we've sterilized it in that way, but that's also another discussion.
Anyway, have at it I guess. I consider myself one of the most conservative people on this board, though maybe that word doesn't mean what it used to, but I do like real discussions with many of the evil nazi socialists. Is it possible or does it have to go to PMs?
You mainly need to worry when a girl accuses you of making her pregnant.
It doesn't just "POOF" happen.
-John
1. You are right, the line has to be drawn somewhere and it seems you agree that conception doesn't make sense as that line. There are arguments for and against any line we choose. Viability? How do you determine exactly when a fetus would be viable? You can't really, so some states have drawn the line at specific week counts. When it comes to rights though, the feds have drawn the line in the least subjective manner possible: birth. A human is either born or not born.I've been trying to stay out of this one. While there are some people on here that I really like to engage (dank, eski, a couple others), it's just destined to turn into a insult and scoff-fest.
Here goes a few cents anyways.
1 the acorn analogy. I think it's technically accurate, and if we were dealing with any animal other than a human it would be air tight. It does break down rather quickly the further along a pregnancy is though. At some point, the difference between a baby with personal rights and a fetus with none is ONLY a matter of geography. At that point, the analogy would be more like saying "that's not a bomb, stupid, it's wrapped up in a Christmas box". It will explode when the timer goes off no matter if it has been unwrapped yet or not, its intended function does not change. In ultra late-term abortions (as rare as they may be), it really is the perfect example of "a rose by any other name..." baby, fetus.
2. The mother's right (this is why I quoted you, possum)
The argument falls short in a few instances. First, there's the same thing you've heard a million times, that we have to consider that there is more than one life involved in the decision. This leads back to personhood, another debate but one I would caution extreme care on because those rights are being decided by politicians, who never DON'T have an agenda. At the very least it shouldn't be flippant in discussions.
Second, the idea of the baby's life vs the mother's slavery. The argument that people always have control over their bodies just isn't true. If you chance breaking the law, for instance, you might have to go to prison. You can't abort your prison term on the grounds that it isn't fair to take away your control. Likewise, if you choose to have sex, you know the risks of becoming pregnant. In the same way that some think it's 'unfair' for a mother to be forced to have another person in her body living off her, the fetus didn't ask for its tenure there, nor is it responsible in any way for being there. Actually, it's extremely cold to me to distil the mother/baby relationship to that of parasite/host, and I think it's an indicator of our uneasiness about the whole thing that we've sterilized it in that way, but that's also another discussion.
Anyway, have at it I guess. I consider myself one of the most conservative people on this board, though maybe that word doesn't mean what it used to, but I do like real discussions with many of the evil nazi socialists. Is it possible or does it have to go to PMs?
It's weird that you think forcing women into subjugation is moral. It's in fact sick as fuck that you think that.
2. It's easy for you to say the bolded because you don't risk a 40 week prison sentence every time you have sex.
You mainly need to worry when a girl accuses you of making her pregnant.
It doesn't just "POOF" happen.
-John
1. You are right, the line has to be drawn somewhere and it seems you agree that conception doesn't make sense as that line. There are arguments for and against any line we choose. Viability? How do you determine exactly when a fetus would be viable? You can't really, so some states have drawn the line at specific week counts. When it comes to rights though, the feds have drawn the line in the least subjective manner possible: birth. A human is either born or not born.
2. It's easy for you to say the bolded because you don't risk a 40 week prison sentence every time you have sex.
Can you explain this in more detail? I hear this all the time, but no one goes further to explain it.
How is it forcing women into subjugation? Contraception is widely available and its covered under Obamacare. Secondly, the motive to have sex is premeditated. If you can explain the argument in more detail, it might help.
At the moment, you're basically saying that people are limiting the satisfaction of premeditated sex and its potential consequences. I'm sorry, but if that's the case, the argument doesn't work. No one is talking about masturbation, no one is talking about plan b, no one is talking about intrusion in the bedroom. We're talking about personal responsibility for actions done. Now, if you don't value a pregnancy or care about personal responsibility, I could see your viewpoint, just don't try and act like its subjugation.
Abby Johnson is an American anti-abortion activist. Born and raised in a "conservative, pro-life family" from Texas,
Just as slave owners claimed slaves were not human to justify owning them, abortion supporters claim unborn babies are not human to justify killing them. And now you want to "part" them out for under the table cash. It won't be long before liberals are choking them in the crib.
Contraception is great, but it is not always used, and it is not always successful, so despite the availability of contraception, women still get pregnant. What follows is that unless you intend to punish women for not using contraception correctly (or at all) or having the bad luck that the properly used contraception failed, the availability of contraception becomes irrelavent, and we concern ourselves only with the women who are pregnant but do not want to carry a child to term. I believe that there are plenty of people that think in exactly this way, but they should be upfront about it.
The "motive" to have sex (motive is a fucking weird word to use here so I'm going to swith to "drive") is biological, and nearly universal. It is about much, much more than releasing some endorphins into your brain, otherwise we would all just masturbate, and not bother with dating sites. It is about a deep emotional connection and a drive to physically express your feelings for a romantic partner. People that have sex are healthier than people that don't, physically and emotionally.
Restricting reproductive rights subjucates women by taking normal, biolgocially driven, healthy behavior (having sex), and using it to force women to bear children when they do not want to.
The video linked to in the link below is an interview with an ex PP employee. A Director in fact. She talks about the business of PP and how they had abortion quotas to meet. She also talks about how they purposely steered young women into methods of birth control that PP knew had a good chance of failing. The impetus behind that was to sell the girls an abortion.
http://iotwreport.com/crowder-interview-with-ex-planned-parenthood-employee/
It's big business that's for certain. The head honcho reportedly made $523 million last year.
Imagine that. Oh, and those poor folks at PP need taxpayers to keep underwriting them too!
It's big business that's for certain. The head honcho reportedly made $523 million last year.
Talk about perverting the argument.
Preventing murder = restricting reproductive rights.
You'd leave a woman bleeding to death in a back ally. You're the fucking murderer douchebag.
Actually, for me the line is conception. My reasoning for this is purely spiritual though, I don't believe there is personhood, and obviously no ability to feel pain, or do anything other than mitos (that's probably not a verb). Because of this reasoning, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I understand that if there is no spirit, my opinion would change.
2. Please don't think I say anything easily in this subject. While I think it's extremely exaggerated and first-world-problemy to call pregnancy a prison sentence, perhaps in the same way, if I were a promiscuous man, you could say I would be risking 18-25 years of servitude every time I had sex. As powerful and enjoyable as sex is, it's also something you can choose to not do if you are afraid of the consequences. I think our instant gratification culture has eroded our patience, though I'm glad to see a few compassionate people trying to make sense of it for everyone, as fair as possible.
Call an ambulance. She killed a baby for no profit and now needs medical attention.
Sounds like the conservatives are going after the women's vote hard