Zone1 A Question For Pro-Choicers

[pknopp]

pknopp wasn't replying to you I think?

Maybe, if so, sorry.

 

[forkup]

Maybe, if so, sorry.

No problem. It happens.

 

[Concerned American]

Donald Trump for instance,

Irrelevant. Keep to the topic.

for the consequences to another person.

None of the irrelevant examples that you cite include the right to violently end the life of another human being. Try again

I can smoke

Also irrelevant and untrue. In CA you cannot even smoke in your own home if you live in a duplex, triplex, condo or any other unit with a common wall with another unit.

Only the mother is forced to take responsibility.

Untrue. I hold both parties equally responsible--but the mother has the ultimate say as to whether or not she becomes pregnant. No means No.

Mine is when the fetus is capable to survive on its own.

When would that be? An infant or toddler are not capable of surviving on their own. So now you advocate for their murder as well?

hide behind loaded terms like murder

Not loaded. Factual. What else would you call the violent taking of another human's life? The issue is only complicated because you make it so. The issue would not exist if people acted responsibly.

 

[forkup]

Irrelevant. Keep to the topic.

None of the irrelevant examples that you cite include the right to violently end the life of another human being. Try again


Also irrelevant and untrue. In CA you cannot even smoke in your own home if you live in a duplex, triplex, condo or any other unit with a common wall with another unit.

Untrue. I hold both parties equally responsible--but the mother has the ultimate say as to whether or not she becomes pregnant. No means No.

When would that be? An infant or toddler are not capable of surviving on their own. So now you advocate for their murder as well?

Not loaded. Factual. What else would you call the violent taking of another human's life? The issue is only complicated because you make it so. The issue would not exist if people acted responsibly.

Let's try it this way.

My wife takes birth control because she doesn't want to become pregnant. Sadly, she becomes so. Is she forced to carry the fetus to term even though she has a history of pre-eclampsia?

 

[Concerned American]

Let's try it this way.

My wife takes birth control because she doesn't want to become pregnant. Sadly, she becomes so. Is she forced to carry the fetus to term even though she has a history of pre-eclampsia?

Birth control is known to be less than perfect. It can be augmented with prophylactics, diaphragms, or if all that fails, there is the morning after pill. Three options that are far preferable to murder of a child.

 

[forkup]

Birth control is known to be less than perfect. It can be augmented with prophylactics, diaphragms, or if all that fails, there is the morning after pill. Three options that are far preferable to murder of a child.

Not what I asked. Is she obligated to carry it to term? Just answer the question.

 

[Concerned American]

Not what I asked. Is she obligated to carry it to term? Just answer the question.

Seems to me, because she chose to have sex knowing that she limited her control options and even after the act she chose not to ensure there was no chance of pregnancy, she made the CHOICE to become pregnant in spite of knowing her physical history. That does not give her license to commit murder. If serious complications arise that truly compromise her health, that has been addressed in current law. I explained this in post #197. It is already part of current law so irrelevant to this discussion. Straw man.

 

[forkup]

Seems to me, because she chose to have sex knowing that she limited her control options and even after the act she chose not to ensure there was no chance of pregnancy, she made the CHOICE to become pregnant in spite of knowing her physical history. That does not give her license to commit murder. If serious complications arise that truly compromise her health, that has been addressed in current law. I explained this in post #197. It is already part of current law so irrelevant to this discussion. Straw man.

Ah, so now the issue becomes. Not that my wife is being irresponsible. But that to your opinion she isn't being responsible enough. She obviously didn't want to become pregnant since she did use birth control. In other worse it wasn't a choice but an accident. So next question. What amount of birth control is sufficient in your opinion to allow my wife, which you claim has full control of her body, to have an abortion?

 

[Blues Man]

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.

I don't believe that.

When I die I will die and there will be nothing. My body's matter and energy will be recycles by the natural world

 

[Blues Man]

View attachment 840291

That's supposed to mean something you no doubt believe is profound

But it's meaningless.

And why are you dodging my questions of when it will be acceptable to violate the rights of a woman in favor of the rights of the unborn?

 

[Concerned American]

she isn't being responsible enough.

LMAO, do you have any idea what irresponsible means? It seems you want to twist definitions of words to meet your narrative. You have done it with abortion/murder and now you want to put limits on "irresponsibility."

Which you claim has full control of her body.

She has proven without a doubt that she does not have full control of her body or her actions. She knows what causes pregnancy and what the consequences of those actions are. If she becomes pregnant, she made the choice.

 

[forkup]

LMAO, do you have any idea what irresponsible means? It seems you want to twist definitions of words to meet your narrative. You have done it with abortion/murder and now you want to put limits on "irresponsibility."

She has proven without a doubt that she does not have full control of her body or her actions. She knows what causes pregnancy and what the consequences of those actions are. If she becomes pregnant, she made the choice.

Again dodging the question by attacking me. WHAT AMOUNT OF BIRTH CONTROL TO YOU IS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW FOR AN ABORTION?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

The right of an innocent child not to be murdered over the “right” of his mother to have him murdered.

 

[Mr Natural]

The right of an innocent child not to be murdered over the “right” of his mother to have him murdered.

The rights of the woman outweigh the rights of an unborn.

Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What you are advocating for is denying, a safe, medically sound, and often extremely rational solution…

.…that results in the needless and unjustifiable death of an innocent human being. It is blatantly dishonest to describe homicide as “safe” or “medically sound”.

 

[forkup]

The right of an innocent child not to be murdered over the “right” of his mother to have him murdered.

What about the right of the mother to not have to deal with morning sickness? The right of the mother to not have to deal with pre-eclampsia? The right of the mother to not have the pain of delivery? The right of the mother to work? The right of the mother to have a stable financial future? The right of the mother not to be confronted with the consequences of rape and incest? The right of the mother to live when pregnancy is threatening her life?

What "rights" do you allow for the mother?

 

[Concerned American]

Again dodging the question by attacking me.

I answered your question. Please show me where I attacked you. I merely pointed out that you were trying to use two different definitions of responsibility based on level--and I showed you in your own post. If you feel that is an attack, maybe you should take responsibility and take action to stop it.

Again dodging the question by attacking me. WHAT AMOUNT OF BIRTH CONTROL TO YOU IS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW FOR AN ABORTION?

NONE, except in the case of rape, incest (which can be done before a heartbeat is detected) or imminent danger to the life of the mother, all of which are addressed in the laws of every state. Triggered? Now turn off your caps. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I do not advocate for the murder of innocents. Do you get it now? Murder for the convenience of the irresponsible parents is not acceptable.

 

[Concerned American]

What "rights" do you allow for the mother?

She relinquished those rights when she CHOSE to have irresponsible sex.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The rights of the woman outweigh the rights of an unborn.

Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

You're arguing for a “right” to savagely murder an innocent child in cold blood. Just how sociopathic and outright evil do you have to be, how deeply fucked up in your very soul (assuming you still have it), to think that any such “right” should exist?

 

[forkup]

I answered your question. Please show me where I attacked you. I merely pointed out that you were trying to use two different definitions of responsibility based on level--and I showed you in your own post. If you feel that is an attack, maybe you should take responsibility and take action to stop it.

NONE, except in the case of rape, incest (which can be done before a heartbeat is detected) or imminent danger to the life of the mother, all of which are addressed in the laws of every state. Triggered? Now turn off your caps. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I do not advocate for the murder of innocents. Do you get it now? Murder for the convenience of the irresponsible parents is not acceptable.

So none? Now we are getting somewhere. So the problem isn't that the mother is irresponsible. Since there is nothing she could responsibly do to allow for an abortion.

Seems to me that your problem isn't with the actions of the mother. Responsible or irresponsible. The issue is that you personally feel that the fetus is more important than the mother and as such her rights should be limited.

By the way the caps were by way of identifying the question. The question that you dodged until you acknowledged that there are no options for the mother in regard to birth control that would allow for an abortion in your opinion.