The left continues to contradict themselves

[Some Guy]

You guys love to invent things people said, when they never said them. Is a slave growing inside of and feeding off of a woman’s body? Is a slave the same as that?

Slave owners used the exact same justification for doing what they wanted with someone else's life. They owned black people, therefore they have property rights over them and can do what they want with them.

If you're now saying that a fetus is a life and that the mother can remove it from her, then you're saying that the mother has property rights over that life. I'm just helping you understand what you really think about this from a logical standpoint. I haven't told you position, just explaining the logical consistency/inconsistencies at play here. I hope you've learned something here today.

 

[Some Guy]

Except it's not. The law is trying to be scientific. 43 states prohibit abortions after a certain point from 20 to 24 weeks. This is a reasonable restriction as long as there are circumstances that would allow abortion beyond that if, for example, the life of the mother is at risk.

Are you going to try to make the argument that a fetus isn't a life until it passes some gestation period?

 

[jc456]

Black and white thinking would be that a fetus is a life. Period. No exceptions and no considerations.

Biology is one of the more black and white things. Is a fetus a life? Yes, biology says yes it is.

Your position of "it's her choice no mater what" is very anti-scientific as a result. You're saying that in this instance, feelings and convenience is important enough to ignore science. That's fine if that's your position, but don't claim that your global warming opponents are "denying science." If you want to have any logical consistency, that is.

Even if we call it a life, it’s her choice to get it out from inside her body or not. Not a guy poisoning her drink.

why does she get the choice and not him? what's the difference? I mean it's a doctor that kills the baby in an abortion, I doubt he laid a finger on her until that day.

 

[jc456]

Except it's not. The law is trying to be scientific. 43 states prohibit abortions after a certain point from 20 to 24 weeks. This is a reasonable restriction as long as there are circumstances that would allow abortion beyond that if, for example, the life of the mother is at risk.

Are you going to try to make the argument that a fetus isn't a life until it passes some gestation period?

It's only a life if the woman says so. I didn't know women were gods. I have to now rethink some things. hly fk, they got the wrong jesus.

 

[BlackFlag]

You guys love to invent things people said, when they never said them. Is a slave growing inside of and feeding off of a woman’s body? Is a slave the same as that?

Slave owners used the exact same justification for doing what they wanted with someone else's life. They owned black people, therefore they have property rights over them and can do what they want with them.

If you're now saying that a fetus is a life and that the mother can remove it from her, then you're saying that the mother has property rights over that life. I'm just helping you understand what you really think about this from a logical standpoint. I haven't told you position, just explaining the logical consistency/inconsistencies at play here. I hope you've learned something here today.

You are comparing a slave to a fetus. A fetus is literally a growth inside of a woman’s body. When life threatening or unwanted, it is removed. A slave is purchased for money. Don’t be absurd.

 

[Seawytch]

Except it's not. The law is trying to be scientific. 43 states prohibit abortions after a certain point from 20 to 24 weeks. This is a reasonable restriction as long as there are circumstances that would allow abortion beyond that if, for example, the life of the mother is at risk.

Are you going to try to make the argument that a fetus isn't a life until it passes some gestation period?

I'm saying that it's the woman's choice regardless of my personal beliefs. I'm saying that some restrictions can be quite reasonable. Prohibition of abortion is not reasonable.

 

[jc456]

You guys love to invent things people said, when they never said them. Is a slave growing inside of and feeding off of a woman’s body? Is a slave the same as that?

Slave owners used the exact same justification for doing what they wanted with someone else's life. They owned black people, therefore they have property rights over them and can do what they want with them.

If you're now saying that a fetus is a life and that the mother can remove it from her, then you're saying that the mother has property rights over that life. I'm just helping you understand what you really think about this from a logical standpoint. I haven't told you position, just explaining the logical consistency/inconsistencies at play here. I hope you've learned something here today.

You are comparing a slave to a fetus. A fetus is literally a growth inside of a woman’s body. When life threatening or unwanted, it is removed. A slave is purchased for money. Don’t be absurd.

if it was unwanted, she shouldn't have had coitus. just saying. then she wouldn't have to kill a living human being. It is still that. no matter whaaaaaaaattttt you think it is. it is still killing a human being. And no human is god.

 

[Seawytch]

Black and white thinking would be that a fetus is a life. Period. No exceptions and no considerations.

Biology is one of the more black and white things. Is a fetus a life? Yes, biology says yes it is.

Your position of "it's her choice no mater what" is very anti-scientific as a result. You're saying that in this instance, feelings and convenience is important enough to ignore science. That's fine if that's your position, but don't claim that your global warming opponents are "denying science." If you want to have any logical consistency, that is.

Even if we call it a life, it’s her choice to get it out from inside her body or not. Not a guy poisoning her drink.

why does she get the choice and not him? what's the difference? I mean it's a doctor that kills the baby in an abortion, I doubt he laid a finger on her until that day.

You don't know the difference between being pregnant and not be pregnant? When a man can risk his health, body and life by being pregnant, he has equal say.

 

[jc456]

Black and white thinking would be that a fetus is a life. Period. No exceptions and no considerations.

Biology is one of the more black and white things. Is a fetus a life? Yes, biology says yes it is.

Your position of "it's her choice no mater what" is very anti-scientific as a result. You're saying that in this instance, feelings and convenience is important enough to ignore science. That's fine if that's your position, but don't claim that your global warming opponents are "denying science." If you want to have any logical consistency, that is.

Even if we call it a life, it’s her choice to get it out from inside her body or not. Not a guy poisoning her drink.

why does she get the choice and not him? what's the difference? I mean it's a doctor that kills the baby in an abortion, I doubt he laid a finger on her until that day.

You don't know the difference between being pregnant and not be pregnant? When a man can risk his health, body and life by being pregnant, he has equal say.

how you figure? it's his baby. it wouldn't be a baby without him. so you're confused.

 

[jc456]

Except it's not. The law is trying to be scientific. 43 states prohibit abortions after a certain point from 20 to 24 weeks. This is a reasonable restriction as long as there are circumstances that would allow abortion beyond that if, for example, the life of the mother is at risk.

Are you going to try to make the argument that a fetus isn't a life until it passes some gestation period?

I'm saying that it's the woman's choice regardless of my personal beliefs. I'm saying that some restrictions can be quite reasonable. Prohibition of abortion is not reasonable.

it's coming sooner than you think. the heartbeat law will be overruling roe vs wade and then what?

 

[Some Guy]

You are comparing a slave to a fetus. A fetus is literally a growth inside of a woman’s body. When life threatening or unwanted, it is removed. A slave is purchased for money. Don’t be absurd.

It's not different at all when it comes to property rights. If you think a fetus is a life, then the only way you can justify abortion is if the mother has property rights over the fetus, which thus gives her the legal authority to destroy her own property. It's no different than how slave owners justified the things they did to their slaves: they claimed property rights over them.

You just said that a fetus is growth though, comparing it to a tumor, which suggests you don't see it as a life until some arbitrary point. Which again, means you don't support science as truth.

 

[Some Guy]

I'm saying that it's the woman's choice regardless of my personal beliefs. I'm saying that some restrictions can be quite reasonable. Prohibition of abortion is not reasonable.

I don't disagree on the surface. Abortion is a tough issue when all the societal and ethical factors are taken into consideration. What shouldn't be in contention in the slightest though is that a fetus is a life from conception. From there, you can have arguments about restrictions based on certain factors, including perhaps the fetus' ability to feel pain, mother's health, rape/incest, etc.

Pretending that a fetus isn't a life is nothing but a cop-out in effort to not feel bad about the opinion that it's acceptable to end a life based ultimately on convenience.

 

[BlackFlag]

You guys love to invent things people said, when they never said them. Is a slave growing inside of and feeding off of a woman’s body? Is a slave the same as that?

Slave owners used the exact same justification for doing what they wanted with someone else's life. They owned black people, therefore they have property rights over them and can do what they want with them.

If you're now saying that a fetus is a life and that the mother can remove it from her, then you're saying that the mother has property rights over that life. I'm just helping you understand what you really think about this from a logical standpoint. I haven't told you position, just explaining the logical consistency/inconsistencies at play here. I hope you've learned something here today.

You are comparing a slave to a fetus. A fetus is literally a growth inside of a woman’s body. When life threatening or unwanted, it is removed. A slave is purchased for money. Don’t be absurd.

if it was unwanted, she shouldn't have had coitus. just saying. then she wouldn't have to kill a living human being. It is still that. no matter whaaaaaaaattttt you think it is. it is still killing a human being. And no human is god.

The guy killed it with poison you retard. Go play somewhere.

 

[Some Guy]

You don't know the difference between being pregnant and not be pregnant? When a man can risk his health, body and life by being pregnant, he has equal say.

Turn the tables here with the story about the OP. Let's say that a man and woman got pregnant together because they wanted a baby. He's super excited about the baby but she gets cold feet, thus she takes something that ultimately ends up terminating the pregnancy and he can prove that she did it on purpose.

At that point, should she be charged with fetal homicide? Does he, as the father and 50% of that baby's genes, have no right to say that his baby was murdered?

If we can't land on a definitive definition of what life is, then it is completely impossible to land on a definitive law when it comes to this stuff.

 

[jc456]

You guys love to invent things people said, when they never said them. Is a slave growing inside of and feeding off of a woman’s body? Is a slave the same as that?

Slave owners used the exact same justification for doing what they wanted with someone else's life. They owned black people, therefore they have property rights over them and can do what they want with them.

If you're now saying that a fetus is a life and that the mother can remove it from her, then you're saying that the mother has property rights over that life. I'm just helping you understand what you really think about this from a logical standpoint. I haven't told you position, just explaining the logical consistency/inconsistencies at play here. I hope you've learned something here today.

You are comparing a slave to a fetus. A fetus is literally a growth inside of a woman’s body. When life threatening or unwanted, it is removed. A slave is purchased for money. Don’t be absurd.

if it was unwanted, she shouldn't have had coitus. just saying. then she wouldn't have to kill a living human being. It is still that. no matter whaaaaaaaattttt you think it is. it is still killing a human being. And no human is god.

The guy killed it with poison you retard. Go play somewhere.

what does a doctor kill it with? You know that right? It is the doctor that kills it. It's why it isn't the woman's to kill. assisted suicides aren't allowed by law.

 

[Thinker101]

A man made a decision about a woman’s body. Very conservative of him.

Nothing happened to the woman’s body. The FATHER decided to have a “safe and legal ABORTION” (which then forced you to result to a completely false narrative). How very progressive of you.

^ Man poisons woman, and this dumb Trump sheep says he didn’t do anything to her

You are trying really hard BUT you are failing miserably.

What is confusing about this? The guy poisoned his girlfriend. You want to compare it to abortion for whatever reason, but can’t because abortion is not the man’s decision.

How about reading the link. You keep saying the guy "poisoned" his girlfriend. The link clearly states he gave her an abortion pill. WTF?

 

[WEATHER53]

For liberals facts are racist and feelings are “American values”

 

[BlackFlag]

I'm saying that it's the woman's choice regardless of my personal beliefs. I'm saying that some restrictions can be quite reasonable. Prohibition of abortion is not reasonable.

I don't disagree on the surface. Abortion is a tough issue when all the societal and ethical factors are taken into consideration. What shouldn't be in contention in the slightest though is that a fetus is a life from conception. From there, you can have arguments about restrictions based on certain factors, including perhaps the fetus' ability to feel pain, mother's health, rape/incest, etc.

Pretending that a fetus isn't a life is nothing but a cop-out in effort to not feel bad about the opinion that it's acceptable to end a life based ultimately on convenience.

Sounds like now you think it WAS a homicide. Whether a fetus is automatically a life with rights is an opinion. I side with a woman’s choice. So does the law.

 

[BlackFlag]

Black and white thinking would be that a fetus is a life. Period. No exceptions and no considerations.

Biology is one of the more black and white things. Is a fetus a life? Yes, biology says yes it is.

Your position of "it's her choice no mater what" is very anti-scientific as a result. You're saying that in this instance, feelings and convenience is important enough to ignore science. That's fine if that's your position, but don't claim that your global warming opponents are "denying science." If you want to have any logical consistency, that is.

Even if we call it a life, it’s her choice to get it out from inside her body or not. Not a guy poisoning her drink.

why does she get the choice and not him? what's the difference? I mean it's a doctor that kills the baby in an abortion, I doubt he laid a finger on her until that day.

What’s the difference?

No sex ed at your school?

 

[jc456]

I am no longer tolerant of the left. they are wishy washy human beings led through life with no moral compass. This OP is just another example that they can't even stand behind their own convictions.