Zone1 A Question For Pro-Choicers

[pknopp]

I wonder if the pro-lifers here have considered that there are limits to the government's ability to prevent evil from happening. For example, child abuse could be prevented by requiring parents to install cameras in their homes so that the state can monitor their parenting and ensure they aren't harming their children. But, hopefully, most of us agree that would be an intrusion we wouldn't tolerate. Even though child abuse is horrible, a government that monitors our personal family matters in that way would be worse. At some level we have to trust parents and hope for the best.

That's where I'm at with the abortion issue. Is a fetus "alive"? Of course. Is it conscious? Is it a person? That's debatable, but even if it is, the intrusion required to "protect" it is too much. Procreation is the ultimate personal concern. The state has no business regulating it and no business dictating what goes on inside a person's body.

I also have a huge issue with some of the steps some are willing to take. I'm pro-life. I also understand the limits that can be taken. It's why I support things like health care, child care, education, etc that would help a woman to make the decision on her own to not abort.

Those who want to intrude into a persons privacy I can't support.

 

[Blues Man]

Your argument here is solid digestive waste from a male bovine.

That a particular crime may be difficult to detect is no excuse to violate any rights of anyone who might have the opportunity to commit that crime. It just means that someone who does commit such a crime has a better chance of getting away with it in this life. (Any such offender will still be held to answer for it in the next life, after standing befor God to be judged.)

How do you protect an unborn person if the woman refuses to eat?

How do you protect a born child is it is not being fed properly?

The latter is easy you remove the child and feed it.
The former requires that you restrain the woman and force feed her in some manner.

You say you think that at conception the resultant embryo is a person and has all the rights of personhood but you refuse to address the actual interventions the government would have to take to protect that unborn fetus from harm as it would any other born child.

And your god means nothing to me. This is about the legal and ethical ramifications of your assertion that an unborn fetus has all the rights of personhood.

 

[Blues Man]

How many innocent human beings do you want to murder in cold blood, to prevent some portion of them from growing up to be criminals?

I don't want to murder anyone.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Independence With Self Ownership And Self Determination "

* Willful Intents In Contract Made Valid Through Informed Consent *

I also have a huge issue with some of the steps some are willing to take. I'm pro-life. I also understand the limits that can be taken. It's why I support things like health care, child care, education, etc that would help a woman to make the decision on her own to not abort.
Those who want to intrude into a persons privacy I can't support.

Such a position would be considered #AbortionChoice .

A live birth requirement is principle to the constitutional basis for public policy on abortion .

A wright to privacy is incidental and not principle to the constitutional basis for public policy on abortion .

 

[pknopp]

" Independence With Self Ownership And Self Determination "

* Willful Intents In Contract Made Valid Through Informed Consent *

Such a position would be considered #AbortionChoice .

RvW was overturned. We still have choice in this country. Tell me what it is you think I should do to change that?

 

[AHZ]

" Projection Of False Equivalences By Inaccurate Diction Is Not Acceptable "

* Life Continuum With Entropy Disorders Of Natural Gawd *

Babies have been born and are referred to babies because they develop an ability to babble .

A notion of life includes physical states without sufficient sophistication by which to obtain a subjective introspection and are termed inchoate .

Without a sophisticated physical state sufficient for subjective introspection , a premise that cognitive objection of mind is relevant would be false .

Arguments for an onset of sentience and natural viability are rhetorical .

A " with cause " abortion is optioned due to developmental anomalies most often determined by ultrasound between 13 and 20 weeks of development , given the availability of providers services .

By general nature , women do not seek " without cause " abortion after the first trimester given the availability of provider services .

The basis for a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen , from #roevwade and us 14th amendment , is consistent with assuring that individuals determine self ownership and self determination for themselves when it comes to " with cause " abortion .

The development of a sophisticated physical state that is capable of sentience is a necessary contingency by which empathy for suffering could be valid .

The onset of sentience and an ability for a fetus to survive an imminent live birth at natural viability are closely concomitant in timeline .

Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade

" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade " * On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism * The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom...

www.usmessageboard.com

* Towing This Line As Well *

Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction

* Applying The Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of A Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction * * Opening Post Subjective Objective Sew Gnomon * The term right is a faux pas of diction , as to equivocate the term right with a mathematical norm leads to a contradiction ...

www.usmessageboard.com

should a.i. be considered alive and possessing rights?

 

[Concerned American]

To only those rights that don't interfere with her function as a breeding station.

She made that decision when she chose to have irresponsible sex. There are many options to prevent the pregnancy. She doesn't have the right to terminate the rights of the child because she didn't avail herself to the remedy that didn't include murder.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is. And you are suggesting to simply ignore that balance and give the fetus all rights and the mother none.

I am not advocating any such thing. I am calling for the obvious right of an innocent human being to not be savagely murdered in cold blood to be placed above any bullshit excuses that any sociopath might make to try to justify that murder.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm pro-life.

You cannot honestly claim to be “pro-life” with one tip of your forked tongue, while, with the other tip of your forked tongue, defending the murders of thousands of the most innocent and defenseless human beings every day.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And your god means nothing to me.

One day, you'll stand before Him to be judged on what you have done with the life that He has given you. You'll have the chance to tell Him to His face that He means nothing to you, before He sends you downstairs.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't want to murder anyone.

 

[pknopp]

You cannot honestly claim to be “pro-life” with one tip of your forked tongue, while, with the other tip of your forked tongue, defending the murders of thousands of the most innocent and defenseless human beings every day.

I defended nothing. I noted that RvW was overturned, but abortion was still legal. I noted what I would support and asked what it is others think I should do.

Too complicated for you perhaps.

 

[forkup]

I am not advocating any such thing. I am calling for the obvious right of an innocent human being to not be savagely murdered in cold blood to be placed above any bullshit excuses that any sociopath might make to try to justify that murder.

No, you're advocating to ignore the basic rights of the mother in favor of those of the fetus.

I'm sorry, but when you're in favor of giving the mother no choice in keeping the fetus that's what you're saying.

 

[Mr Natural]

No, you're advocating to ignore the basic rights of the mother in favor of those of the fetus.

I'm sorry, but when you're in favor of giving the mother no choice in keeping the fetus that's what you're saying.

It’s their way of punishing the mother for having illicit, unprotected sex.

 

[forkup]

She made that decision when she chose to have irresponsible sex. There are many options to prevent the pregnancy. She doesn't have the right to terminate the rights of the child because she didn't avail herself to the remedy that didn't include murder.

First of all. There are plenty of times when the woman doesn't make that choice. Birth control isn't a hundred percent effective. There are instances when sex is forced. I know personally of one instance where the mother was so young, she couldn't honestly be considered mature enough to even fathom the consequences of having sex.

Second, even if the sex was chosen. The (possible) consequences of having sex aren't always considered, wanted, or even likely.

What you are advocating for is denying, a safe, medically sound, and often extremely rational solution, to an unwanted, uncomfortable, sometimes dangerous, lifelong decision.

It is her body you are saying she doesn't have a right to.

If I see someone drown in a river, can I be obligated to try to save them? I think we both agree that that sort of altruism can't be forced. Yet in the case of pregnancy, you do. Simply because you hold the mother (unjustly) responsible for getting pregnant. In my opinion that's not a good enough reason.

 

[forkup]

It’s their way of punishing the mother for having illicit, unprotected sex.

How do you get too illicit? Or for that matter the sex was unprotected or even wanted?

 

[Concerned American]

It is her body you are saying she doesn't have a right to.

You keep saying that and I keep telling you that she has TOTAL control. Irresponsibility in ANYTHING has consequences. You can't take another life to cover for your own irresponsibility. Your examples of rape, incest and the life of the mother are outliers and are addressed in every state in the union. You are advocating for blanket murder on demand.

 

[pknopp]

No, you're advocating to ignore the basic rights of the mother in favor of those of the fetus.

How so? Please explain. I've said nothing that would deny women anything.

I think you are just ranting.

I'm sorry, but when you're in favor of giving the mother no choice in keeping the fetus that's what you're saying.

I've never said that. Odd you would claim that. I don't even know how one would do that.

 

[forkup]

You keep saying that and I keep telling you that she has TOTAL control. Irresponsibility in ANYTHING has consequences. You can't take another life to cover for your own irresponsibility. Your examples of rape, incest and the life of the mother are outliers and are addressed in every state in the union. You are advocating for blanket murder on demand.

Irresponsibility often doesn't have consequences. Donald Trump for instance, can single out, even outright lie about other people. Even though it's already been proven that what he says can lead to violence. I can smoke, even when secondhand smoke has been proven to kill. I can do hundreds of irresponsible things, things that affect other people, of which you would have no problem making the distinction between being irresponsible (if applicable) personally and being responsible for the consequences to another person. Yet in pregnancy you simply deny that distinction exists. There are 2 people that are necessary to conceive. Only the mother is forced to take responsibility. Only the mother is forced to take the risk of a pregnancy.

As to what I advocate, you are wrong. I think there should be a time limit on abortion. Mine is when the fetus is capable to survive on its own. Or later when the life of the mother is in danger. This is my personal opinion. I'm not arrogant enough though to consider that as anything more than a personal opinion.

Abortion is a complicated, morally fraught issue. It's trying to balance the rights of the mother to those of the fetus. My problem lays in the fact that you, and the people in the pro-life camp hide behind loaded terms like murder in order to not acknowledge that they're opinion has morally questionable consequences. Just like the pro-choice side does.

 

[forkup]

How so? Please explain. I've said nothing that would deny women anything.

I think you are just ranting.




I've never said that. Odd you would claim that. I don't even know how one would do that.

pknopp wasn't replying to you I think?