The Personhood of the unborn needs to be settled

[TemplarKormac]

There are two equally responsible people involved in that scenario, and it's about time everyone started remembering that.
No more of this slut shaming women who find themselves pregnant after engaging in sex which is considered good sport for the men and only nasty for the women.
Nuh-uh.

"Nuh-uh"

Who are you, Queen Latifah? You can get your hand out of my face now.

Slut shaming?

Gimme a break. You insist on being pro choice, but then when you get on the horse and get pregnant, you want yet another choice to get out of the bad choice you made before. Pro choice begins in the bedroom. It does not begin six weeks into a pregnancy when a fetal heartbeat is detected.

That's not slut shaming, that's bad decision making. I'm sorry. The woman bears just as much responsibility for her actions as the man does.

 

[OldLady]

Given how hard that is, expecially when you're poor, I'd really rather people aren't forced to give birth to children they don't want or can't afford. Forcing poor women to have babies is ridiculous. The rich will just go to Canada.

Yanno, if you don't want to be sullied with the responsibility of a child, simply practice abstinence. If not that, birth control. Don't wait until it is developing in your womb to say "I want control of my body!"

YOU HAD CONTROL OF YOUR BODY BEFORE YOU SPREAD THOSE LEGS OF YOURS.

Now I'm dirty. Time for breakfast and a shower.

YOU HAD CONTROL OF YOUR BODY BEFORE YOU SPREAD THOSE LEGS OF YOURS.
Whoa! There are two equally responsible people involved in that scenario, and it's about time everyone started remembering that.
No more of this slut shaming women who find themselves pregnant after engaging in sex which is considered good sport for the men and only nasty for the women.
Nuh-uh.

correct,, but only one of them can get pregnant and then go on to murder the child,,,

No woman can get pregnant on her own; it takes a male.

A woman chosing a termination of pregnancy is not committing murder. The developing embryo and fetus is a potential human in early stages and each fertilization of an egg will result in a different potential human. Like many many rolls of the dice, there is great variety in the human experiment. It is best to wait until the parents are ready to welcome and care for their children. This dice roll may not be at the right time. There will be other chances, as many as you wish to take.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Help young women who feel there is no other option to come up with a better plan. That's fine. But don't push your belief onto someone else by making abortion illegal. Doctors don't believe it is murder and the law does not believe it is murder and most of the people in this country do not believe it is murder. It is a termination of pregnancy. Make another roll of the dice when you are ready to accept Mother Nature's consequences for the act.

abortion is murder and this whole conversation is about other options,,,

and if you werent so dead set on killing as the first option this conversation wouldnt be a waste of time,,,

You are the one who is wasting everyone's time here. I have certainly not heard any "conversation" about other options. All I've heard is a lot of name calling and extreme rhetoric meant to get people outraged. No conversation here.

 

[OldLady]

There are two equally responsible people involved in that scenario, and it's about time everyone started remembering that.
No more of this slut shaming women who find themselves pregnant after engaging in sex which is considered good sport for the men and only nasty for the women.
Nuh-uh.

"Nuh-uh"

Who are you, Queen Latifah? You can get your hand out of my face now.

Slut shaming?

Gimme a break. You insist on being pro choice, but then when you get on the horse and get pregnant, you want yet another choice to get out of the bad choice you made before. Pro choice begins in the bedroom. It does not begin six weeks into a pregnancy when a fetal heartbeat is detected.

That's not slut shaming, that's bad decision making. I'm sorry. The woman bears just as much responsibility for her actions as the man does.

I never said she didn't. You are the one who slut shamed the women. Take responsibility for your own shitty attitude.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No woman can get pregnant on her own; it takes a male.

STOP THE TRAIN AND LET ME OFF.

You only acknowledge the male's role in impregnating her, but not his role when it comes to the decision to have an abortion. I saw discussion about fairness and equity earlier. But to you, it is only fair and equitable if only the woman can make the choice and leave the man out of it. No man, no sperm, no fertilized egg, no fetus, no choice to make.

Are men just tools to you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are two equally responsible people involved in that scenario, and it's about time everyone started remembering that.
No more of this slut shaming women who find themselves pregnant after engaging in sex which is considered good sport for the men and only nasty for the women.
Nuh-uh.

"Nuh-uh"

Who are you, Queen Latifah? You can get your hand out of my face now.

Slut shaming?

Gimme a break. You insist on being pro choice, but then when you get on the horse and get pregnant, you want yet another choice to get out of the bad choice you made before. Pro choice begins in the bedroom. It does not begin six weeks into a pregnancy when a fetal heartbeat is detected.

That's not slut shaming, that's bad decision making. I'm sorry. The woman bears just as much responsibility for her actions as the man does.

I never said she didn't. You are the one who slut shamed the women. Take responsibility for your own shitty attitude.

Seems like you're the one copping an attitude.

I call it like I see it. I don't care who I offend in the process.

There are no mistakes in the bedroom. If you commit to the act, you are responsible for the forthcoming result. Both of you.

I find it to be more weighted on the woman's shoulders because she is the vessel which carries the life she will want to eventually terminate. Her choice is threefold, she can either say no, and avoid the abortion process entirely, she can say yes and commit to the pregnancy. Or she can demand the use of a condom during intercourse to avoid the abortion process.

Rape is another ballgame. While I can understand the desire of a woman to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape, I also wonder why or how it is fair to exterminate that life due to the manner in which it was conceived.

 

[Cecilie1200]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

As already correctly noted, it was settled over 40 years ago.

As a fact of constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a person, a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

I just heard, "As soon as I get my way, I get it forever! But if you get your way, I can fight it until Hell freezes over!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

They are not a person.

How do we legally identify a person if not through DNA. DNA says they are human.

Humanity alone does not confer rights or personhood.

I DEFINITELY think you should stick to that argument, and never, ever consider the fact that you just made the case for people to eliminate you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey look...I'm not debating the hair splitting twisted semantics you whackos hide behind to justify your filth...That said, do you think it's odd that you defend an eagles egg the way you do?

You are obsessed with filth. Stop projecting it on others. It is not semantics. Now keep your filthy hands off of our rights.

View attachment 261281

Conservatives:
“We want you to pay for your own children.”

Filthy Pieces Of Shits:
“What...you think my children are better off dead?”

The level of Loon from you LefTarded folks grows by the day.

Filthy Pieces of Shit: we wont help you with your kids but we sure as hell will force you to bear them.

Filthy Pieces of Shit: we will accuse you of things we imagine you do to avoid dealing with the evil we actually do.

 

[OldLady]

Can it walk, talk or chew gum? Does a fetus have any sentient awareness? Can it survivie outside the womb?

First, as the child is developing in the womb, it is reliant on the nutrients supplied to it by the mother. Her diet and physical condition determine the health of the baby (assuming a full term pregnancy)

Second, after birth, the child is again reliant on either of its parents to feed and nurture it. The amount of nurturing the child gets determines whether the child lives or dies.

Third, throughout childhood, the child is dependent on the parents for basic needs. This period is when the child should be taught how to care for themself. How well the child learns to take care of themself through their teenage years and adulthood will determine if they live or die.

The one key similarity? Dependence.

Now, to wrap that up...

Your key argument is that since the fetus depends on the mother, the fetus is not human and therefore part of the mother. Since it has not yet developed "sentience" as you so define it, it is not human.

WRONG.

If we used your argument, then the fetus, the baby, and the child would not be human. If that child is born with a cognitive disorder that robs he or she of their sentience or awareness, they cease to be human. None would be human until they shed their dependency on their parents or gained/regained the "sentient awareness." For the next decade or two (or the rest of their life for that matter), the child/adult would be a "potential human".

Your argument is flawed. Your argument is emotional.

And since I am not a homeless man in San Francisco, I am not going to rifle through more of your garbage post.

Have a good morning.

You have more patience than I do. I can't work up even this much ability to treat her posts as if they're coming from a semi-reasoning creature.

Use facts like ammo on a Vulcan cannon.

People will continue to make irrational arguments until someone obliterates them.

That's what I call real concern for human life.

 

[OldLady]

No woman can get pregnant on her own; it takes a male.

STOP THE TRAIN AND LET ME OFF.

You only acknowledge the male's role in impregnating her, but not his role when it comes to the decision to have an abortion. I saw discussion about fairness and equity earlier. But to you, it is only fair and equitable if only the woman can make the choice and leave the man out of it. No man, no sperm, no fertilized egg, no fetus, no choice to make.

Are men just tools to you?

I never said men couldn't have a role in the decision, but banning abortion is not giving anyone a chance to make a decision, is it? That is what I am supporting is CHOICE.

 

[OldLady]

There are two equally responsible people involved in that scenario, and it's about time everyone started remembering that.
No more of this slut shaming women who find themselves pregnant after engaging in sex which is considered good sport for the men and only nasty for the women.
Nuh-uh.

"Nuh-uh"

Who are you, Queen Latifah? You can get your hand out of my face now.

Slut shaming?

Gimme a break. You insist on being pro choice, but then when you get on the horse and get pregnant, you want yet another choice to get out of the bad choice you made before. Pro choice begins in the bedroom. It does not begin six weeks into a pregnancy when a fetal heartbeat is detected.

That's not slut shaming, that's bad decision making. I'm sorry. The woman bears just as much responsibility for her actions as the man does.

I never said she didn't. You are the one who slut shamed the women. Take responsibility for your own shitty attitude.

Seems like you're the one copping an attitude.

I call it like I see it. I don't care who I offend in the process.

There are no mistakes in the bedroom. If you commit to the act, you are responsible for the forthcoming result. Both of you.

I find it to be more weighted on the woman's shoulders because she is the vessel which carries the life she will want to eventually terminate. Her choice is threefold, she can either say no, and avoid the abortion process entirely, she can say yes and commit to the pregnancy. Or she demand the use of a condom during intercourse to avoid the abortion process.

Rape is another ballgame. While I can understand the desire of a woman to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape, I also wonder why or how it is fair to exterminate that life due to the manner in which it was conceived.

I also wonder why or how it is fair to exterminate that life due to the manner in which it was conceived.
I agree with that argument. It is not the child's fault that it is a product of rape or incest. Incest, by the way, is a common reason for abortion. Most child sexual abuse is done by family members.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

banning abortion is not giving anyone a chance to make a decision, is it?

You really want to run with that?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Incest, by the way, is a common reason for abortion.

That is a LIE. Or you're ignorant. Which?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can it walk, talk or chew gum? Does a fetus have any sentient awareness? Can it survivie outside the womb?

First, as the child is developing in the womb, it is reliant on the nutrients supplied to it by the mother. Her diet and physical condition determine the health of the baby (assuming a full term pregnancy)

Second, after birth, the child is again reliant on either of its parents to feed and nurture it. The amount of nurturing the child gets determines whether the child lives or dies.

Third, throughout childhood, the child is dependent on the parents for basic needs. This period is when the child should be taught how to care for themself. How well the child learns to take care of themself through their teenage years and adulthood will determine if they live or die.

The one key similarity? Dependence.

Now, to wrap that up...

Your key argument is that since the fetus depends on the mother, the fetus is not human and therefore part of the mother. Since it has not yet developed "sentience" as you so define it, it is not human.

WRONG.

If we used your argument, then the fetus, the baby, and the child would not be human. If that child is born with a cognitive disorder that robs he or she of their sentience or awareness, they cease to be human. None would be human until they shed their dependency on their parents or gained/regained the "sentient awareness." For the next decade or two (or the rest of their life for that matter), the child/adult would be a "potential human".

Your argument is flawed. Your argument is emotional.

And since I am not a homeless man in San Francisco, I am not going to rifle through more of your garbage post.

Have a good morning.

You have more patience than I do. I can't work up even this much ability to treat her posts as if they're coming from a semi-reasoning creature.

Use facts like ammo on a Vulcan cannon.

People will continue to make irrational arguments until someone obliterates them.

That's what I call real concern for human life.

"Them" as in the arguments, not the people. So desperate for a win you are dispensing with what's left of your reading comprehension.

Is it getting too rough for you in here? Am I making things too difficult for you to comprehend?

Too bad.

 

[OldLady]

banning abortion is not giving anyone a chance to make a decision, is it?

You really want to run with that?

Don't interrupt.

 

[TemplarKormac]

banning abortion is not giving anyone a chance to make a decision, is it?

You really want to run with that?

Don't interrupt.

What is he interrupting precisely? A temper tantrum?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

banning abortion is not giving anyone a chance to make a decision, is it?

You really want to run with that?

Don't interrupt.

What is he interrupting precisely? A temper tantrum?

The FACT is, abortion for incest is quite rare, and when it does occur it is nearly always forced on the victim to protect the related predator.

 

[OldLady]

Incest, by the way, is a common reason for abortion.

That is a LIE. Or you're ignorant. Which?

The most common reason for abortion is financial. However, if incest as a reason for abortion were not a real consideration, why is it listed as an exception in almost every proposed law to limit or prohibit abortion? Often the girl is young and still home with parents, who take her for the abortion whether she wants one or not.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are two equally responsible people involved in that scenario, and it's about time everyone started remembering that.
No more of this slut shaming women who find themselves pregnant after engaging in sex which is considered good sport for the men and only nasty for the women.
Nuh-uh.

"Nuh-uh"

Who are you, Queen Latifah? You can get your hand out of my face now.

Slut shaming?

Gimme a break. You insist on being pro choice, but then when you get on the horse and get pregnant, you want yet another choice to get out of the bad choice you made before. Pro choice begins in the bedroom. It does not begin six weeks into a pregnancy when a fetal heartbeat is detected.

That's not slut shaming, that's bad decision making. I'm sorry. The woman bears just as much responsibility for her actions as the man does.

I never said she didn't. You are the one who slut shamed the women. Take responsibility for your own shitty attitude.

Seems like you're the one copping an attitude.

I call it like I see it. I don't care who I offend in the process.

There are no mistakes in the bedroom. If you commit to the act, you are responsible for the forthcoming result. Both of you.

I find it to be more weighted on the woman's shoulders because she is the vessel which carries the life she will want to eventually terminate. Her choice is threefold, she can either say no, and avoid the abortion process entirely, she can say yes and commit to the pregnancy. Or she demand the use of a condom during intercourse to avoid the abortion process.

Rape is another ballgame. While I can understand the desire of a woman to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape, I also wonder why or how it is fair to exterminate that life due to the manner in which it was conceived.

I also wonder why or how it is fair to exterminate that life due to the manner in which it was conceived.
I agree with that argument. It is not the child's fault that it is a product of rape or incest. Incest, by the way, is a common reason for abortion. Most child sexual abuse is done by family members.

Now, let's get one thing straight. If a child rapist gets a 12 year old pregnant, that should most certainly involve the swift use of contraceptives. If that rapist happens to be her uncle, same deal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In this day and age, there is no reason for unwanted children. There is enough hell in this world. Birth control is better -- an ounce of prevention, as they say. But try being practical for once. Why would you force someone who is not willing or able to rear a child to have one and take on the life long commitment they already said they will not cannot do? What is wrong with that? Pushing adoption as a solution is not practical either--our adoption system is already full of kids who need parents.

Our abortion rate has been dropping steadily since 1980 and is now as low as when abortion was first made legal in 1973. That is good news and whatever we're doing right needs to continue, but banning abortion and making illegal again is not the answer. Better birth control and availability of family planning and public acceptance of careful contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood is essential to this. Leave them alone.

Why do you insist on thinking that WE are forcing them to do anything? They forced THEMSELVES into that position by engaging in an act designed to produce the result they just said they don't want. I for one neither plan to feel guilty, nor to endorse infanticide, because some dumbass indulged in self-destructive behavior, got the obvious result, and is now whining to me because it's "unfair" that nature didn't reverse its rules for her "specialness".

Not sure I'm interested in your idea of "practical", which looks remarkably like the "practicality" shown by every evil dictator in human history: these people are inconvenient, so the "practical" thing to do is kill them. Pass.

Sex is not "self-destructive behavior." LOL It is one of the fundamental urges hardwired into our brains and people will NOT stop participating in it, no matter how much you scowl at them or wag your finger.

Of course you call it evil; what a shocker.

Poverty breeds all kinds of negative behaviors and poor outcomes that cost our government much more in the long run than a $600 termination of pregnancy. That is known, settled fact. If parents can't afford a child, why you are championing more of that, I am not sure.

Sex is frequently self-destructive behavior. "LOL" That you don't know this tells me everything I need to know about your life. Look at people who cheat on their spouses; people who get drunk and wake up next to a total stranger; people who wind up in therapy for sex addiction. Just because something is a fundamental urge doesn't mean that any and every expression of that urge is a good and positive thing for you. Eating is a whole lot more fundamental and necessary than sex, but I dare you to walk into a Weight Watchers and tell those people that that means eating can't ever be self-destructive.

Of course you think acknowledging that people should control and channel their urges is "calling it evil". Nothing shocking about a leftist being amoral and illogical at the same time.

Do not fucking start lecturing me on "If we just had more government giveaway programs, all problems would be solved, and we wouldn't have to stop fucking like crazed weasels."

I'm not championing parents having children they can't afford, you obtuse twat. I champion them not making extra children in the first place. But I don't think killing a child once you HAVE made it is any kind of solution. I'm afraid I just can't muster your level of soulless, cold-blooded evil.

Providing safe affordable daycare so that mothers can work and keep a roof over their heads and NOT on welfare is not a government giveaway program. It allows mothers to work; even you should agree that is a good thing.

No one said people shouldn't control their urges and I'd love to see where I called that "evil." It is simply impractical to assume that people are going to fall in line with that thinking. The majority of folks do not immediately think "PREGNANCY" when the mood strikes. They are thinking something quite different. Unless you are now and have always been frigid, you know that, too.

I agree with you that sex CAN be self-destructive. It is not usually self-destructive, which seemed to be your premise. Perhaps I was wrong.

I have responded to you civilly, and I would appreciate a reply in kind.

Clearly, you don't understand English the first time it comes at you, so let me do you the courtesy of repeating myself for the comprehension-impaired:

Do not fucking start lecturing me on "If we just had more government giveaway programs, all problems would be solved, and we wouldn't have to stop fucking like crazed weasels."

Moving along to other things that reveal you're completely illiterate and should be embarrassed to speak where someone might hear you:

No one said people shouldn't control their urges and I'd love to see where I called that "evil."

Seriously, learn English, cow. What the hell's wrong with you?! HERE is the actual conversation that your stupid ass couldn't follow the first time around:

ME: I for one neither plan to feel guilty, nor to endorse infanticide, because some dumbass indulged in self-destructive behavior . . . Not sure I'm interested in your idea of "practical", which looks remarkably like the "practicality" shown by every evil dictator in human history . . .

YOU: Sex is not "self-destructive behavior." Of course you call it evil; what a shocker.

ME: Sex is frequently self-destructive behavior . . . Of course you think acknowledging that people should control and channel their urges is "calling it evil".

YOU: No one said people shouldn't control their urges and I'd love to see where I called that "evil."

Do you see where you're conversing with the voices in your own senile head, and responding to me about things THEY said? Do you get that you're in a completely different fucking conversation than THIS one, getting your granny panties all riled up over things you only imagine were said? Do you recognize that you sound like a babbling moron? If you're going to talk to ME, then respond to MY words, not the ones you wish I had said.

Now go back and try it again, and at least PRETEND to be coherent.