The dearth of self-awareness

#21
(Feb 3, 2019 01:12 AM)Syne Wrote: And we do not rape because their body is not ours to do with as we wish.

And we do not force them to carry a fetus in their body because their body is not ours to do with as we wish.

Syne Wrote:Your womb "has" human life; it is not a unique human organism.

Mine doesn't. I just got over that "don't fuck with me period." Thank you very much.  Big Grin

Syne Wrote:You cannot own another unique human organism without tacitly endorsing slavery.

"It’s my child and I’ll kill it if I want to." That’s not the rhetorical stance, silly boy! That’s not what the abortion debate is about. First of all, a fetus isn’t a baby because it cannot live outside of a woman’s womb. Yeah, her womb!

Syne Wrote:Wow, what a non sequitur. You must feel the need to distract from the facts you patently refuse to address...like science and nature.

Um...you mean just like you did with this thread? Gun laws and abortions? Well, like you said, there are already gun laws in place but there are also abortions laws in place. Pro-choice is about holding that line and the US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Syne Wrote:Killing people who have intentionally harmed or threaten to harm others is very different from killing unborn babies who couldn't possibly be guilty of intentionally harming anyone. Oops, there's that pesky morality you've apparently never heard of.

Uh...you're the one that brought up the late-term abortion law, which was put in place to insure the safety of women.

Syne Wrote:You're just a creep trying to justify killing the innocent.

Um...sorry but your'e the creepy guy that keeps going on and on about the human population decreasing and now you’re calling people that support a woman’s choice psychopathic murderers. Yeah, you’re starting to paint a picture that’s very similar to Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale. Scary.

I know you’ll never read it but others might.

Abortion, Dignity and a Capabilities Approach

Rosalind Dixon
Martha Craven Nussbaum
Reply
#22
(Feb 3, 2019 03:14 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 3, 2019 01:12 AM)Syne Wrote: And we do not rape because their body is not ours to do with as we wish.

And we do not force them to carry a fetus in their body because their body is not ours to do with as we wish.
Neither is the body of a fetus yours to do with as you wish. Your bad choices and inconvenience do not trump the life of another human.

Slavers had trouble understanding that rights apply equally to all humans too.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Your womb "has" human life; it is not a unique human organism.

Mine doesn't. I just got over that "don't fuck with me period." Thank you very much.  Big Grin
Rolleyes The living tissue of any womb "has" life. That is the only life it possess, again, unless you believe someone or something can own another human.

Jeez, no wonder leftists feel so much white guilt.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:You cannot own another unique human organism without tacitly endorsing slavery.

"It’s my child and I’ll kill it if I want to." That’s not the rhetorical stance, silly boy! That’s not what the abortion debate is about. First of all, a fetus isn’t a baby because it cannot live outside of a woman’s womb. Yeah, her womb!
Every women intending to carry it to term calls it a baby, and science doesn't distinguish between human life inside or outside of the womb. Your use of "baby" is wholly arbitrary and seemingly only in a vain attempt to justify your immorality.

And NY is saying you can kill a baby AFTER it can survive outside the womb. So there goes that argument.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Wow, what a non sequitur. You must feel the need to distract from the facts you patently refuse to address...like science and nature.

Um...you mean just like you did with this thread? Gun laws and abortions? Well, like you said, there are already gun laws in place but there are also abortions laws in place. Pro-choice is about holding that line and the US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution.
LOL! If you don't see that the connection there is "protecting babies", I can't help you. It's right there in the OP.

Abortion is not in the Constitution, and activist judges don't have the authority to change it. Only the legislative branch can do that.
NY passed this law for the express purpose that they are afraid that what was done by the Supreme Court could just as easily be undone by it too (not guaranteed by the US Constitution). It takes Congress and ratification by 2/3 of the states to change the Second Amendment. Huge difference.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Killing people who have intentionally harmed or threaten to harm others is very different from killing unborn babies who couldn't possibly be guilty of intentionally harming anyone. Oops, there's that pesky morality you've apparently never heard of.

Uh...you're the one that brought up the late-term abortion law, which was put in place to insure the safety of women.
Non sequitur and complete bullshit. Add in a straw man and we'd have the SS trifecta in a single sentence.

Late-term abortion has NOTHING to do with the simple distinction between killing the guilty and killing the innocent. But apparently that's how you avoid addressing that simple distinction. Dodgy

And FYI, it was Leigha who brought up late-term abortion, and YOU who brought up the NY abortion law. If you're going to spin non sequitur bullshit, it might help to have at least one fact right. Rolleyes

Quote:
Syne Wrote:You're just a creep trying to justify killing the innocent.

Um...sorry but your'e the creepy guy that keeps going on and on about the human population decreasing and now you’re calling people that support a woman’s choice psychopathic murderers. Yeah, you’re starting to paint a picture that’s very similar to Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale. Scary.

"a woman's choice" to kill an innocent human life. That is what it is in reality. Such euphemisms always hide ugly truths to quell obvious cognitive dissonance. What that has to do with a declining birthrate is anyone's guess.

Again, it's your personal problem if you equate protecting the innocent with rape. Just more of your creepy immorality. It's like you've actually convinced yourself that women's ability to kill babies is the only bulwark against losing every other right.
Reply
#23
Wow! You're a piece of work, aren't you?

Science fiction author and journalist Patrick S. Tomlinson turned to the Trolley problem.

"You’re at a fertility clinic when the fire alarm goes off. Before you escape, you have the option to save either one five-year-old child who is pleading for help, or a container of 1000 viable human embryos. What do you do?"

Oh, I almost forgot.

Syne Wrote:Abortion is not in the Constitution, and activist judges don't have the authority to change it.
 
Um...the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy. They reaffirmed it again in 1992 stating that "matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Pa...d_v._Casey

So...the 1000 embryos? What's your answer, Syne?
Reply
#24
(Feb 3, 2019 05:06 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Wow! You're a piece of work, aren't you?

Science fiction author and journalist Patrick S. Tomlinson turned to the Trolley problem.

"You’re at a fertility clinic when the fire alarm goes off. Before you escape, you have the option to save either one five-year-old child who is pleading for help, or a container of 1000 viable human embryos. What do you do?"
It's funny that you, and he, seem to think that's some sort of gotcha question. The moral answer to the trolley problem is always the same...at least if you have a consistent morality. You obviously save the five-year-old first. Embryos will not reach any potential at all unless implanted and gestated, whereas a child is already a realized potential. So neglect of the realized potential in favor of possibly never realized potential is morally wrong. You'd have to be a monster to think that's any kind of dilemma at all.

It's all human life, but we obviously don't grief a miscarriage the way we grief lost children or loved ones. That's because we had the chance to realize the unique potential we lost, instead of only an abstract potential. But unrealized potential doesn't mean it has no value either, any more than your unrealized potential to reason means you have no value.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Abortion is not in the Constitution, and activist judges don't have the authority to change it.
 
Um...the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that women, as part of their constitutional right to privacy, can terminate a pregnancy during its first two trimesters. Only during the last trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb, would states be permitted to regulate abortion of a healthy pregnancy. They reaffirmed it again in 1992 stating that "matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Judicial interpretation is always open to being revisited, whereas actual Constitutional amendments are not so readily changed.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade


Instead of a balancing method of legal interpretation, the court could use founders/legislators intent. Or they could just revisit the unscientific lies that led to the decision in the first place.

The NY law removes any restriction to abortion in the last trimester, and only with the vaguely undefined "health" of the mother, which has become another euphemistic catchall.
Reply
#25
(Feb 3, 2019 06:40 AM)Syne Wrote: The moral answer to the trolley problem is always the same...at least if you have a consistent morality. You obviously save the five-year-old first. Embryos will not reach any potential at all unless implanted and gestated, whereas a child is already a realized potential. So neglect of the realized potential in favor of possibly never realized potential is morally wrong. You'd have to be a monster to think that's any kind of dilemma at all.

It's all human life, but we obviously don't grief a miscarriage the way we grief lost children or loved ones. That's because we had the chance to realize the unique potential we lost, instead of only an abstract potential. But unrealized potential doesn't mean it has no value either, any more than your unrealized potential to reason means you have no value.

Then we all understand that we can grant the fetus a type of (potential) human dignity but we all realize that it is distinct from that of post-human beings.

"The asymmetry between a potential and an actual being suggests that, pre-viability, the woman’s claim should in general prevail."

Quote:There is a deep body of theoretical writing dating back at least to the ancient Greek and Roman Stoics, and prominently exemplified in the writings of Immanuel Kant, which supports the idea that respect for human dignity involves seeing a human being as an end and not a mere means. This respect involves a reciprocal willingness, on the part of individuals, to treat others as subjects and not merely objects, and thus entails the protection of areas of freedom around people so that they can determine their own destiny in areas of central concern.

What is each person able to do and to be?

Quote:There are a variety of ways in which laws restricting abortion may burden or violate the dignity of women: by restriction of liberty and choice, but also by damage or risks to health, bodily integrity, emotional well-being, employment options, and affiliations.

"Prior to the viability of the fetus ex utero, the continued existence of the fetus as a being entitled to human dignity is entirely contingent on the provision of affirmative support by a woman. In these circumstances, a fetus cannot be said to have a “right to life” unless, from a normative perspective, a woman is also under a corresponding duty to provide such affirmative support.

In a liberal society which prizes individual autonomy…

there will also be few circumstances in which it is legitimate—from the standpoint of notions of equal justice– to impose such a duty. Such a duty certainly could not reasonably be said to arise where a woman’s own life was in danger if she continues a pregnancy to term, given her right, as a normative matter, to engage in at least certain limited forms of self-defense. A similar self-defense argument can be made in cases in which the woman risks severe bodily injury.

If a pregnancy threatens seriously to undermine a woman’s physical or psychological health, because of the danger associated with the pregnancy itself, or the trauma associated with giving birth to a child who is the result of sexual violence or subject to the severe impairments, in most instances it would also be unreasonable in a liberal society, which generally prizes individual human dignity over notions of communal obligation, to impose such a duty, even if fetal itself has a claim to be treated with dignity.

This is makes it clear how it is that any demand a woman makes to access an abortion on therapeutic grounds is based on claims with the same type of normative force as those made on behalf of the fetus, and therefore why it would be unreasonable for the state to seek systematically to prefer one of these claims, over another, by (for example) broadly criminalizing access to abortion. Once we add recognition of the potential and dependent status of the pre-viability fetus, the degree of normative force in the woman’s claim seems, as a general matter, stronger.

A similar analysis also applies, under a CA, in circumstances where a woman claims that if she were denied access to an abortion, she would lose all meaningful chance to determine the future shape of her life. Not only would a woman in such circumstances lose the opportunity to exercise a central human capability—i.e., her capacity for practical reason. The possibility that this could occur, even where sex is fully protected, could also serve to discourage women more generally from forming the kind of intimate relationship, or seeking the kind of sexual pleasure, that is integral to the opportunity for a life worthy of full human dignity the fetus, but the asymmetry between a potential and an actual being suggests that, pre-viability, the woman’s claim should in general prevail."
Quote:There is also a particularly close connection between the struggle for human dignity and gender equality, given that for many women the struggle for reproductive rights advocates is parallel to previous struggles by men to "assert their common humanity and dignity against an overbearing state apparatus", such that "the right to reproduce or not to reproduce"… is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman’s struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.

Sunstein argues that the imposition of a burden of life-support on women, given that they are already a "suspect class" for Equal Protection purposes, is unconstitutional, even if we should grant for the sake of argument that the fetus is a full person—in much the way that a law requiring all and only African-Americans to make kidney donations would be unconstitutional. The choice to become a parent, he argues, is, among other things, a choice of a social role or status. For the state to deny such a choice is for society to deny the person’s equal worth. Ginsburg makes similar arguments. Siegel argues that restrictions on abortion not only express invidious stereotypes about women’s role, but also create a caste-like hierarchy by increasing women’s dependence on men and impairing women’s access to sexual pleasure.

Equality arguments are important, since they may persuade people who are convinced that the fetus has a moral status fully equal to that of a born person.

(Feb 3, 2019 03:14 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Abortion, Dignity and a Capabilities Approach
Reply
#26
(Feb 4, 2019 03:40 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 3, 2019 06:40 AM)Syne Wrote: The moral answer to the trolley problem is always the same...at least if you have a consistent morality. You obviously save the five-year-old first. Embryos will not reach any potential at all unless implanted and gestated, whereas a child is already a realized potential. So neglect of the realized potential in favor of possibly never realized potential is morally wrong. You'd have to be a monster to think that's any kind of dilemma at all.

It's all human life, but we obviously don't grief a miscarriage the way we grief lost children or loved ones. That's because we had the chance to realize the unique potential we lost, instead of only an abstract potential. But unrealized potential doesn't mean it has no value either, any more than your unrealized potential to reason means you have no value.

Then we all understand that we can grant the fetus a type of (potential) human dignity but we all realize that it is distinct from that of post-human beings.

"The asymmetry between a potential and an actual being suggests that, pre-viability, the woman’s claim should in general prevail."
No, you seem to be trying to blur the line between a potential human LIFE and realized human health and convenience concerns. The latter never trumps the former, and the latter definitely doesn't define the former...any more than a landowner can legitimately define the personhood of a slave. Potential is a gradient, from unimplanted embryo to unborn to child. The more realized, the more precedent it takes when balancing between them. But you are not balancing those potentials, as there's no real world case where aborting one baby could save a child. But I welcome you to try finding one.

So this detour into "human dignity" is just another in a long list of euphemistic red herrings to distract from the fact that pro-choice is nothing more than advocating killing babies...and only because women are, by your own arguments, nothing more than children themselves.

Quote:
Quote:There is a deep body of theoretical writing dating back at least to the ancient Greek and Roman Stoics, and prominently exemplified in the writings of Immanuel Kant, which supports the idea that respect for human dignity involves seeing a human being as an end and not a mere means. This respect involves a reciprocal willingness, on the part of individuals, to treat others as subjects and not merely objects, and thus entails the protection of areas of freedom around people so that they can determine their own destiny in areas of central concern.
Yes, the human life in the womb is not an object you can just throw away. Do you even comprehend the idea of consistent reasoning at all? O_o
Without the right to life, there is no other freedom.

Quote:What is each person able to do and to be?

Quote:There are a variety of ways in which laws restricting abortion may burden or violate the dignity of women: by restriction of liberty and choice, but also by damage or risks to health, bodily integrity, emotional well-being, employment options, and affiliations.

"Prior to the viability of the fetus ex utero, the continued existence of the fetus as a being entitled to human dignity is entirely contingent on the provision of affirmative support by a woman. In these circumstances, a fetus cannot be said to have a “right to life” unless, from a normative perspective, a woman is also under a corresponding duty to provide such affirmative support.
No, again, your freedom ends where it harms another human life. Your temporary health, body integrity, emotions, employment, and affiliations do not justify killing a human life, monster.

Again, the NY law allows aborting viable babies for just about any reason, like the aforementioned health, emotions, etc.. So any argument of yours centered around viability is completely disingenuous unless you decide to utterly disavow laws like the one in NY.

And "the continued existence of the [born child] ... is entirely contingent on the provision of affirmative support by a [caregiver]". So your reasoning not only supports abortion, it also supports infanticide, psychopath.

Quote:In a liberal society which prizes individual autonomy…

...there will also be few circumstances in which it is legitimate—from the standpoint of notions of equal justice– to impose such a duty. Such a duty certainly could not reasonably be said to arise where a woman’s own life was in danger if she continues a pregnancy to term, given her right, as a normative matter, to engage in at least certain limited forms of self-defense. A similar self-defense argument can be made in cases in which the woman risks severe bodily injury.

If a pregnancy threatens seriously to undermine a woman’s physical or psychological health, because of the danger associated with the pregnancy itself, or the trauma associated with giving birth to a child who is the result of sexual violence or subject to the severe impairments, in most instances it would also be unreasonable in a liberal society, which generally prizes individual human dignity over notions of communal obligation, to impose such a duty, even if fetal itself has a claim to be treated with dignity.

This is makes it clear how it is that any demand a woman makes to access an abortion on therapeutic grounds is based on claims with the same type of normative force as those made on behalf of the fetus, and therefore why it would be unreasonable for the state to seek systematically to prefer one of these claims, over another, by (for example) broadly criminalizing access to abortion. Once we add recognition of the potential and dependent status of the pre-viability fetus, the degree of normative force in the woman’s claim seems, as a general matter, stronger.

A similar analysis also applies, under a CA, in circumstances where a woman claims that if she were denied access to an abortion, she would lose all meaningful chance to determine the future shape of her life. Not only would a woman in such circumstances lose the opportunity to exercise a central human capability—i.e., her capacity for practical reason. The possibility that this could occur, even where sex is fully protected, could also serve to discourage women more generally from forming the kind of intimate relationship, or seeking the kind of sexual pleasure, that is integral to the opportunity for a life worthy of full human dignity the fetus, but the asymmetry between a potential and an actual being suggests that, pre-viability, the woman’s claim should in general prevail."
The duty ("entirely contingent on the provision of affirmative support") is opposed on men all the time, hypocrite. Why aren't you a men's right advocate? Because such arguments have nothing to do with "equal justice". Just more leftist lies or self-deceit.

A woman's life being in danger is trivial, because without her life, the fetus dies anyway. It's obviously always better to save one life rather than lose two. So this is another disingenuous or ignorant argument. And as with the balance between a fetus and child, if there's an option to save either (vanishingly rare, if at all), it is justified to save the more realized life...although most women who carry long enough to risk their life wouldn't. Any argument more than threat to her life is a deceptive slippery slope, as we've come to learn, to justify abortion for any reason whatsoever...as the very next sentence proves by immediately leaping to "psychological health".

It's not about "communal obligation"; it's about basic morality and human life. Just more euphemisms to disguise immorality. What is a communal obligation is monetary support from the father, where someone, even welfare, will step in to make sure that child doesn't die.

"...any demand a woman makes to access an abortion on therapeutic grounds..." Therapeutic grounds?! Do these people even hear themselves? Killing babies is therapeutic?! More like psychopathic! This is what happens to reason when you disguise it in euphemisms. It gets horrifically perverted.

"...under a CA, in circumstances where a woman claims that if she were denied access to an abortion, she would lose all meaningful chance to determine the future shape of her life" is complete bullshit, as any women can put their baby up for adoption and many states even allow them to anonymously drop their newborns at fire stations (again, avoiding all responsibility). That doesn't even hold water under their "Capabilities Approach" social justice theory, because nine months doesn't determine "what each person able to do and to be"...unless they're intending to be a completely irresponsible slut.

Men have to deal with the consequences, "even where sex is fully protected". So this is obviously a double standard special pleading. And men can't use Plan-B after the fact. And with Plan-B, women can "forming the kind of intimate relationship, or seeking the kind of sexual pleasure" all they like. You can't say the same of men, whose relationships and sexual pleasure often hinge on having resources not already occupied in supporting numerous children.

And why is it that people want MORE unfettered access to abortion SINCE Plan-B has existed? That would make then not only immoral but also lazy.

Quote:
Quote:There is also a particularly close connection between the struggle for human dignity and gender equality, given that for many women the struggle for reproductive rights advocates is parallel to previous struggles by men to "assert their common humanity and dignity against an overbearing state apparatus", such that "the right to reproduce or not to reproduce"… is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman’s struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.

Sunstein argues that the imposition of a burden of life-support on women, given that they are already a "suspect class" for Equal Protection purposes, is unconstitutional, even if we should grant for the sake of argument that the fetus is a full person—in much the way that a law requiring all and only African-Americans to make kidney donations would be unconstitutional. The choice to become a parent, he argues, is, among other things, a choice of a social role or status. For the state to deny such a choice is for society to deny the person’s equal worth. Ginsburg makes similar arguments. Siegel argues that restrictions on abortion not only express invidious stereotypes about women’s role, but also create a caste-like hierarchy by increasing women’s dependence on men and impairing women’s access to sexual pleasure.
Again, you seem to think the ability to kill babies is some kind of bulwark against losing other rights. That's just silly and paranoid. Unlike the left, there are no realized slippery slopes on the right, because we're actually honest about our goals. Remember the left saying abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare"; what happened to that? Oh right, if it's 100% moral, there's no reason for it to be rare. Just goes to show the moral decline or dishonestly of the left.

And it is blatantly contradictory to "grant for the sake of argument that the fetus is a full person" and then immediately compare that to forcing people "to make kidney donations" in the same sentence. A "full person" is not a part of anyone else's body. YOU CANNOT OWN A PERSON.

The state does deny MEN the "choice to become a parent", and they don't even get to chose whether the morning after pill is used. How does women being just as responsible as men for taking precautions against unwanted pregnancy impair their "access to sexual pleasure"? If it does, then it does so equally for men. And again, women have Plan-B.

Quote:Equality arguments are important, since they may persuade people who are convinced that the fetus has a moral status fully equal to that of a born person.

(Feb 3, 2019 03:14 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Abortion, Dignity and a Capabilities Approach

Again, you're trying to weigh a LIFE against temporary concerns. That's as immoral are justifying slavery because the economy would crash without it. But glad you found a appeal to authority you can just quote to quell your cognitive dissonance.

And the sadly funny part is that you think this helps your argument, which brings us full-circle to a lack of self-awareness.
Reply
#27
Most abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Late term abortions are rare, and if a potential being is going to die, the decision for continued life support provided by the mother should be between her and her physician, not the state. If the mother’s health is at risk, the decision to risk her health or life to save her potential offspring should be left up to her, not the state.

*sniff-sniff* control issues, eh? Could be a redneck thing.

Well, hopefully, they’re as transparent in real life as they are online. Confused


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOlXidHXRE
Reply
#28
(Feb 4, 2019 07:44 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Most abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Late term abortions are rare, and if a potential being is going to die, the decision for continued life support provided by the mother should be between her and her physician, not the state. If the mother’s health is at risk, the decision to risk her health or life to save her potential offspring should be left up to her, not the state.
So you have no worthwhile argument and can only reiterate what you or someone else has proclaimed. Got it. When you can only quote appeals to authority, you often can't refute rebuttals.

Again, you add in "health" as an euphemism that effectively means any reason whatsoever. Should you also kill your child who has a cold because he might threaten your health by spreading it to you? Should you kill the homeless because they may be a threat to public health, like the current typhus outbreak in California? Of course not, as a threat to health is very different from a threat to life.

And again, for the umpteenth time, the NY law allows abortion of viable babies for effectively any reason. So all your hemming and hawing about how rare later-term abortions are is meaningless if you don't want them limited in any way.

Quote:*sniff-sniff* control issues, eh? Could be a redneck thing.

Well, hopefully, they’re as transparent in real life as they are online. Confused

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...sOlXidHXRE

Defending innocent life issues, monster. There's nothing redneck about that. Unless you're implying that only flyover country residents care to defend life...which may be largely true.
The fact that you think anyone would have reason to hide their defense of the innocent is awful telling.

And I don't care what someone thought about abortion 20 years ago. It's what you're advocating now that matters most.
Reply
#29
I've been reading different stories though on where this is heading. It could be heading to a baby that is healthy and delivered, and then killed if the mother doesn't wish to keep it. That's not abortion at that point, it's murder. Lying and brainwashing women will only hurt women in the end, not help them. This isn't about doing what's in the best interest of women. It's about doing what's in the best interest of a radical feminist agenda. Follow the money?

I do believe that if a mother's life is in danger, then it should be between her and her doctor as to what steps to take to ensure her safety. But, this all creates a slippery slope. Roe v Wade wasn't about late term abortions, and now it is. And this is how slippery slopes are made.
Reply
#30
(Feb 4, 2019 09:18 PM)Leigha Wrote: I've been reading different stories though on where this is heading. It could be heading to a baby that is healthy and delivered, and then killed if the mother doesn't wish to keep it. That's not abortion at that point, it's murder. Lying and brainwashing women will only hurt women in the end, not help them. This isn't about doing what's in the best interest of women. It's about doing what's in the best interest of a radical feminist agenda. Follow the money?

I do believe that if a mother's life is in danger, then it should be between her and her doctor as to what steps to take to ensure her safety. But, this all creates a slippery slope. Roe v Wade wasn't about late term abortions, and now it is. And this is how slippery slopes are made.

100% agreed. But it's only a slippery slope because abortion advocates are not honest. They start with the life of the mother only to end up at emotional well-being, which means anything at all. They've made every argument under the sun in favor of abortion, and they've proven all of them were disingenuous, because unrestricted abortion, assisted suicide, and even euthanasia are all within their destructive aims.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)