|
Post by Admin on Jul 16, 2023 1:22:15 GMT
Miscarriages aren't abortions, either. Try explaining that to the 'pro-choice' people. They don't see any difference between something naturally occurring without anyone's knowledge or assistance, and paying someone to deliberately dismember a baby. I guess they also think smothering a baby with a pillow is the same thing as SIDS, and a gunshot to the face is equal to natural causes.
I wonder how many pregnant women have called an abortion clinic to schedule a miscarriage. lol
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 16, 2023 8:42:25 GMT
In fact no, since with almost 70% of respondents on this board, I am in favour of assisted suicide. I would hate to be forced to go on living in endless pain and suffering. I support assisted suicide as well, but abortion isn't suicide. Indeed. But you were asking how I would feel about a choice to terminate my life were you not? In fact in this instance I would probably kill myself earlier while I was still able since assistance is still denied me.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 16, 2023 8:45:06 GMT
That is not the choice which is under discussion. I think you know that. And it appears you are back to victim blaming.
You're not a victim when you're a willing participant. Do women think babies come from a cabbage patch? No. When their dog/cat gets pregnant, do they wonder 'now HOW did that happen?' No. Nor do they wonder 'how do I make sure this doesn't happen again? Oh, get them fixed'. They're as much victims as DUI drivers.
Many women are the victims of the recent religion-inspired, and widely unpopular, retrograde judgement by the Supreme Court, which greatly removed their right to abortion.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 16, 2023 8:46:10 GMT
Try explaining that to the 'pro-choice' people. They don't see any difference between something naturally occurring without anyone's knowledge or assistance, and paying someone to deliberately dismember a baby. I guess they also think smothering a baby with a pillow is the same thing as SIDS, and a gunshot to the face is equal to natural causes.
I wonder how many pregnant women have called an abortion clinic to schedule a miscarriage. lol God, it seems, is very happy with miscarriages. He allows them a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 16, 2023 8:51:02 GMT
Indeed. But you were asking how I would feel about a choice to terminate my life were you not? In fact in this instance I would probably kill myself earlier while I was still able since assistance is still denied me. I didn't have suicide in mind when I asked. I was thinking more along the lines of someone else's choice to terminate your life, like say, your mother's. Or mine. The logic here seems to be that you are being forced to live due to the fact that nobody has killed you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 16, 2023 8:54:58 GMT
Indeed. But you were asking how I would feel about a choice to terminate my life were you not? In fact in this instance I would probably kill myself earlier while I was still able since assistance is still denied me. I didn't have suicide in mind when I asked. I was thinking more along the lines of someone else's choice to terminate your life, like say, your mother's. Or mine. The logic here seems to be that you are being forced to live due to the fact that nobody has killed you. This is your logic not mine. The corollary of this would be that women should constantly bear children, since all have the right to exist.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 16, 2023 9:21:47 GMT
I didn't have suicide in mind when I asked. I was thinking more along the lines of someone else's choice to terminate your life, like say, your mother's. Or mine. The logic here seems to be that you are being forced to live due to the fact that nobody has killed you. This is your logic not mine. The corollary of this would be that women should constantly bear children, since all have the right to exist. Rape notwithstanding, nobody forced her to get pregnant, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. Did you mean to say pregnant women?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 16, 2023 16:05:16 GMT
I didn't have suicide in mind when I asked. I was thinking more along the lines of someone else's choice to terminate your life, like say, your mother's. Or mine. The logic here seems to be that you are being forced to live due to the fact that nobody has killed you. This is your logic not mine. The corollary of this would be that women should constantly bear children, since all have the right to exist.
Did those women have the right to exist? Did they ever apologize to their mothers for ruining their lives, their bodies, destroying any chance they ever had of a dream job, etc?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 16, 2023 16:41:07 GMT
This is your logic not mine. The corollary of this would be that women should constantly bear children, since all have the right to exist. Rape notwithstanding, nobody forced her to get pregnant, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. Did you mean to say pregnant women? Nowhere have I said that foetuses are "being forced to live", the point is that women are being forced to carry full term so this is a strawman. In most western countries a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is decided by the stage where the foetus can survive outside her body and begins to feel pain, which is why the vast majority of abortions are early in the pregnancy. It is a not an ideal threshold but is the best legislators have come up with in the balance of things. I appreciate that for many fundamentalists the protection of life and person inevitably extends right back to the moment of fertilization but, apart from such zealots, (who often seem to be male), is it reasonable to allow a newly-fused gamete the same rights, overriding major ones of the mother, as the claims of a fully formed foetus? I venture to suggest by the unpopularity of the recent USA decision that a majority of women, on the sharp end of things, would say no, and that in the real world it is sensible to draw a line. In my own case since you ask, if my mother had decided to abort me - a decision almost always made reluctantly and with strong reason - for instance in the UK the law says it has to be in order to protect oneself and one's family - I accept that was her choice back then, but am pleased to be here now. I hope that helps. My point just before, btw was merely a reductio ad absurdum: that from one point of view women ought to be obliged to get pregnant when they can, as the right to life overrides any choices they might otherwise expect to have. Indeed something of this can be found in the traditional RC teaching against contraception.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 16, 2023 16:44:32 GMT
This is your logic not mine. The corollary of this would be that women should constantly bear children, since all have the right to exist. Did those women have the right to exist? Did they ever apologize to their mothers for ruining their lives, their bodies, destroying any chance they ever had of a dream job, etc? Do you ever have anything more than rhetorical questions which are largely irrelevent to a woman's right to choose and control over her own body? Does a newly fertilized gamete really have to be given the same rights as a fully formed baby in the womb?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 16, 2023 17:44:20 GMT
Did those women have the right to exist? Did they ever apologize to their mothers for ruining their lives, their bodies, destroying any chance they ever had of a dream job, etc? Do you ever have anything more than rhetorical questions which are largely irrelevent to a woman's right to choose and control over her own body? Does a newly fertilized gamete really have to be given the same rights as a fully formed baby in the womb?
According to pro-choice people, a fully formed baby in the womb has no rights because it hasn't passed the birth canal and according to their 'science' that makes it not alive, not a person, and not even human. New York legalized aborting that fully formed baby in the womb ON the day of birth. Virginia even tried legalizing it AFTER birth.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 16, 2023 20:08:09 GMT
Do you ever have anything more than rhetorical questions which are largely irrelevent to a woman's right to choose and control over her own body? Does a newly fertilized gamete really have to be given the same rights as a fully formed baby in the womb? According to pro-choice people, a fully formed baby in the womb has no rights because it hasn't passed the birth canal and according to their 'science' that makes it not alive, not a person, and not even human. Substantiation for all this? It sounds like more of your exaggeration. Again this sounds extraordinary, so you will need to show this is not fake news. Which is nonsense. And would not be an abortion, but plain murder.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 16, 2023 22:24:35 GMT
According to pro-choice people, a fully formed baby in the womb has no rights because it hasn't passed the birth canal and according to their 'science' that makes it not alive, not a person, and not even human. Substantiation for all this? It sounds like more of your exaggeration. Again this sounds extraordinary, so you will need to show this is not fake news. Which is nonsense. And would not be an abortion, but plain murder.
1-2. I guess you don't talk with other pro-choice people or you'd know that's just PART of their 'scientific' beliefs. Another one, the baby is actually DEAD until it's born. Another, it's the baby's fault the mother gets gestational diabetes even though if you look it up, the risk factors are exactly the same as NON gestational diabetes.
3. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 17, 2023 19:13:42 GMT
Substantiation for all this? It sounds like more of your exaggeration. Again this sounds extraordinary, so you will need to show this is not fake news. Which is nonsense. And would not be an abortion, but plain murder.
1-2. I guess you don't talk with other pro-choice people or you'd know that's just PART of their 'scientific' beliefs. Another one, the baby is actually DEAD until it's born. Another, it's the baby's fault the mother gets gestational diabetes even though if you look it up, the risk factors are exactly the same as NON gestational diabetes.
3. Exactly.
4. No substantiation, then.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 19, 2023 3:20:09 GMT
1-2. I guess you don't talk with other pro-choice people or you'd know that's just PART of their 'scientific' beliefs. Another one, the baby is actually DEAD until it's born. Another, it's the baby's fault the mother gets gestational diabetes even though if you look it up, the risk factors are exactly the same as NON gestational diabetes. 3. Exactly.
4. No substantiation, then. 5. Meet phludowin: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/3230999/thread
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2023 10:59:53 GMT
No substantiation for what has been said here there, either...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 19, 2023 20:58:46 GMT
No substantiation for what has been said here there, either... You asked for substantiation of the claim that pro-choice people believe that a fully formed baby in the womb is not human. Of course not all pro-choicers believe this, but some do. I just showed you one who not only believes that, but asserts that it should be legal to "abort" until ~18 months post birth. The claim that Virginia tried legalizing infanticide comes from this 2019 statement by Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D): In context, he was somehow referring to third-trimester abortions, but clearly Nova didn't pull that out of thin air. At any rate, if a fully formed baby in the womb is a person, it should be afforded the same right to life as yours and mine. While you might agree with that, there are some who don't, which seems to be the point here.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jul 20, 2023 1:49:49 GMT
Try explaining that to the 'pro-choice' people. They don't see any difference between something naturally occurring without anyone's knowledge or assistance, and paying someone to deliberately dismember a baby. I guess they also think smothering a baby with a pillow is the same thing as SIDS, and a gunshot to the face is equal to natural causes.
I wonder how many pregnant women have called an abortion clinic to schedule a miscarriage. lol Quite a few.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2023 2:03:45 GMT
I wonder how many pregnant women have called an abortion clinic to schedule a miscarriage. lol Quite a few. Am I being punk'd? Even if we define a miscarriage as a "spontaneous abortion" (lol) you can't schedule spontaneity.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 20, 2023 20:23:35 GMT
No substantiation for what has been said here there, either... You asked for substantiation of the claim that pro-choice people believe that a fully formed baby in the womb is not human. Of course not all pro-choicers believe this, but some do. I just showed you one who not only believes that, but asserts that it should be legal to "abort" until ~18 months post birth. The claim that Virginia tried legalizing infanticide comes from this 2019 statement by Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D): In context, he was somehow referring to third-trimester abortions, but clearly Nova didn't pull that out of thin air. At any rate, if a fully formed baby in the womb is a person, it should be afforded the same right to life as yours and mine. While you might agree with that, there are some who don't, which seems to be the point here. Well ... yes and no. Pluhdowin actually says ".,, we would [not "ought" one notes) have to make decisions on a case-by-case basis on whether the living being has a right to life, aka is sentient. So law makers usually choose an arbitrary limit. .. it's up to the lawmakers to determine when an entity has a right to life and when not." So, when Novastar6 says "according to pro-choice people, a fully formed baby in the womb has no rights because it hasn't passed the birth canal" Pluhdowin what actually says it is up to the lawmakers to decide the rights. And when Pluhdowin goes on and says " If you are ok with abortion, you should also be ok with infanticide. And that's a valid point of view in my opinion." given such extremes, in the event given the conditional, it could be an argument against abortion. Novastar certainly thinks so. I'd certainly agree that the remarks sound incredibly callous and controversial - perhaps deliberately so, which is suspicious. Perhaps Pluhdowin really does advocate infanticide but without knowing the poster I would take such extreme views with a degree of salt - especially as in another thread he or she wrote (in What sort of abortion advocate are you? on Aug 19, 2022 ) in response to someone's "I’m the type of abortion advocate that doesn’t think it’s too late for damngumby’s mother to abort him, seeing how he lacks brain activity." the response is: Nowhere btw does he or she say a full formed child in the woman is 'not human. I would agree that Peter Singer's ideas can be seen repulsive and ultimately, fascist. However to clarify he has lately said: So it necessary to be more nuanced with what Singer actually believes. It is dishonest to say, as Novastar6 say with typical exaggeration and hyperbole that " According to pro-choice people, a fully formed baby in the womb has no rights because it hasn't passed the birth canal and according to their 'science' that makes it not alive, not a person, and not even human." What he would have written ought to have been "according to a vanishingly few pro-choice people". But with his love of such outrageous claims accuracy goes by the board and the posting is, once again misleading. So it is reasonable to ask for substantiation that "pro choice people" routinely, make such claims rather than offering a couple of strained examples. But they don't. The remarks by Virginia Governor Northam however, were indeed taken out of context, as one might perhaps suspect: As you say "Northam was referring to “third-trimester abortions” that are done in cases “where there may be severe deformities." But "There may be a fetus that’s non viable” he said. “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam stated. At the time, a spokesperson for Northam told Vox the “governor had ‘absolutely not’ been referring to the euthanasia of infants born after a failed abortion” and that he was talking about a “tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.” www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion-idUSKBN27D2HL It is clear what is being discussed is something medically non-viable, as a foetus, baby or person. I doubt if anyone would expect the non-viable to be given the same expectations and rights as other foetuses. In the UK, courts allow the legal termination of life of the certified brain dead for instance. The fact that Novastar just parrots and exaggerates without directly checking things for him or herself, and offers hardly any substantiation, victim blames and so on still remains stark.
|
|