|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 25, 2022 5:02:36 GMT
If you can find a way for the innocent baby to survive from the get go, then your comment will apply. Until then it's apples and oranges. You don't have an inherent right to murder a baby just because nature didn't set it up in a way that benefits you. This isn't the same as organ donation. Nope, the comment applies the whole time. It's still a separate life that we cannot force a woman to support. Nor can you allow its murder. Which is the bigger sin? Murder of a baby or a woman carrying it for 9 months? |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 25, 2022 5:05:02 GMT
Things like that should never belong to the state. It's a personal right, therefore a federal matter.
Republicans just lost the midterms with this stunt.
Show me where the Constitution explicitly says abortion is a personal right. Because your wishes alone don't make it so. And no, they didn't lose the mid terms. They just won't win by as much. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Jun 25, 2022 5:33:00 GMT
Nope, the comment applies the whole time. It's still a separate life that we cannot force a woman to support. Nor can you allow its murder. Which is the bigger sin? Murder of a baby or a woman carrying it for 9 months? Abortion is not murder, either legally speaking (which is what seems to concern you) or from the view of sanity (which you clearly lack). Even Louisiana withdrew its deranged efforts to equate the two. At what point does a zygote become ensouled? Is the answer: a) It doesn't; or b) At a time determined by some crazy fundies? Kentucky, South Dakota, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma will now force rape and incest victims to carry pregnancies to term. As you would expect, among the shittiest of the shithole states, where the fundie is strong. " States' Rights!" - the mindless bleating of bigots and regressives since 1861. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 25, 2022 7:21:59 GMT
Nor can you allow its murder. Which is the bigger sin? Murder of a baby or a woman carrying it for 9 months? Abortion is not murder, either legally speaking (which is what seems to concern you) or from the view of sanity (which you clearly lack). Even Louisiana withdrew its deranged efforts to equate the two. At what point does a zygote become ensouled? Is the answer: a) It doesn't; or b) At a time determined by some crazy fundies? Kentucky, South Dakota, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma will now force rape and incest victims to carry pregnancies to term. As you would expect, among the shittiest of the shithole states, where the fundie is strong. " States' Rights!" - the mindless bleating of bigots and regressives since 1861. See, abortion is in fact murder to half the country. That's why there can never be any compromise on this topic. One side believes it's murder and the other doesn't(can't in fact). You have no science that can tell you when life begins, because none exists. You can call me deranged, but it's just pablum puke without any science to back up your position. Your A and B are also just personal opinion. You know the weakness of your argument, which is why you have to call those who believe life begins at conception "crazy fundies." Ad Hominem attacks are the refuge of those with weak positions, and trolls. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Jun 25, 2022 8:10:57 GMT
Abortion is not murder, either legally speaking (which is what seems to concern you) or from the view of sanity (which you clearly lack). Even Louisiana withdrew its deranged efforts to equate the two. At what point does a zygote become ensouled? Is the answer: a) It doesn't; or b) At a time determined by some crazy fundies? Kentucky, South Dakota, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma will now force rape and incest victims to carry pregnancies to term. As you would expect, among the shittiest of the shithole states, where the fundie is strong. " States' Rights!" - the mindless bleating of bigots and regressives since 1861. See, abortion is in fact murder to half the country. That's why there can never be any compromise on this topic. One side believes it's murder and the other doesn't(can't in fact). You have no science that can tell you when life begins, because none exists. 98% of Saudis believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a magic horse and I can’t disprove that either - it doesn’t make it sane or defensible. But go ahead and defend the legality of a bunch of old white regressive fundie men to impose draconian laws. Because that’s what’s really important here. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 25, 2022 12:13:31 GMT
You won't ever convince them that their seed is not a holy privilege that everyone else should worship Lib.
Insert sarcasm here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 25, 2022 14:36:41 GMT
See, abortion is in fact murder to half the country. That's why there can never be any compromise on this topic. One side believes it's murder and the other doesn't(can't in fact). You have no science that can tell you when life begins, because none exists. 98% of Saudis believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a magic horse and I can’t disprove that either - it doesn’t make it sane or defensible. But go ahead and defend the legality of a bunch of old white regressive fundie men to impose draconian laws. Because that’s what’s really important here. Go for it. Prove that life doesn't begin at conception. Feel free to back it up by science. I'll wait while you do that. Because until you do, your opinion on when life begins is just as valid and/or crazy as anyone else's. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 25, 2022 14:51:14 GMT
Actually, in the bible, it states that life begins at birth (see Genesis). If you're Christian, why don't you follow that? But then, I think you, 3cat and Nail bunny believe that if you stick your dick in something it belongs to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Jun 25, 2022 16:33:50 GMT
98% of Saudis believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a magic horse and I can’t disprove that either - it doesn’t make it sane or defensible. But go ahead and defend the legality of a bunch of old white regressive fundie men to impose draconian laws. Because that’s what’s really important here. Go for it. Prove that life doesn't begin at conception. Feel free to back it up by science. I'll wait while you do that. Because until you do, your opinion on when life begins is just as valid and/or crazy as anyone else's. I need to prove Jack Shit. "When life begins" is not germane to the question of whether the state can control a woman's body - all such determinations are arbitrary. "When life begins" is a thinly-veiled justification used by fundies like you to impose a religious ideology on an ostensibly secular system. "When life begins" is not the moral crux of this argument for people who do not believe in your religious mumbo-jumbo. I don't know what kind of fundie you are - maybe you're a Southern Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Muslim. Maybe you don't espouse any particular religious position and you're a confused Unbeliever fundie like evileeyore - a cultural fundie. Autonomy of Selfhood and ameliorating suffering are my moral compass in this, and nothing else. The consciousness of a zygote is nil; it therefore has no intrinsic value. The consciousness of a fetus is rudimentary; it therefore has minimal value. All arguments to the contrary depend on potentiality, and religious ideology. But that's undoubtedly too subtle for you. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 25, 2022 17:06:31 GMT
Actually no. The basic argument boils down to control. If they can't control it, they ain't happy about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 25, 2022 18:30:48 GMT
Actually, in the bible, it states that life begins at birth (see Genesis). If you're Christian, why don't you follow that? But then, I think you, 3cat and Nail bunny believe that if you stick your dick in something it belongs to you.
So the Bible has nothing to do with my beliefs. You need to stop assuming that this is something that is entirely religious. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 25, 2022 18:33:28 GMT
Go for it. Prove that life doesn't begin at conception. Feel free to back it up by science. I'll wait while you do that. Because until you do, your opinion on when life begins is just as valid and/or crazy as anyone else's. I need to prove Jack Shit. "When life begins" is not germane to the question of whether the state can control a woman's body - all such determinations are arbitrary. "When life begins" is a thinly-veiled justification used by fundies like you to impose a religious ideology on an ostensibly secular system. "When life begins" is not the moral crux of this argument for people who do not believe in your religious mumbo-jumbo. I don't know what kind of fundie you are - maybe you're a Southern Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Muslim. Maybe you don't espouse any particular religious position and you're a confused Unbeliever fundie like evileeyore - a cultural fundie. Autonomy of Selfhood and ameliorating suffering are my moral compass in this, and nothing else. The consciousness of a zygote is nil; it therefore has no intrinsic value. The consciousness of a fetus is rudimentary; it therefore has minimal value. All arguments to the contrary depend on potentiality, and religious ideology. But that's undoubtedly too subtle for you. This is not about control over anyone's body. This entire debate is about the murder of children. Either you believe that life begins at conception and it's murder to kill the baby, or you believe it's a clump of cells until such time as it's convenient to call it a baby so as to not have to face that it could be the murder of an infant. It's a true dichotomy and no part of it is about controlling a woman or removal of choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 25, 2022 18:33:47 GMT
Actually no. The basic argument boils down to control. If they can't control it, they ain't happy about it. Except no part of it is about control. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Jun 25, 2022 19:42:28 GMT
I need to prove Jack Shit. "When life begins" is not germane to the question of whether the state can control a woman's body - all such determinations are arbitrary. "When life begins" is a thinly-veiled justification used by fundies like you to impose a religious ideology on an ostensibly secular system. "When life begins" is not the moral crux of this argument for people who do not believe in your religious mumbo-jumbo. I don't know what kind of fundie you are - maybe you're a Southern Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Muslim. Maybe you don't espouse any particular religious position and you're a confused Unbeliever fundie like evileeyore - a cultural fundie. Autonomy of Selfhood and ameliorating suffering are my moral compass in this, and nothing else. The consciousness of a zygote is nil; it therefore has no intrinsic value. The consciousness of a fetus is rudimentary; it therefore has minimal value. All arguments to the contrary depend on potentiality, and religious ideology. But that's undoubtedly too subtle for you. This is not about control over anyone's body. This entire debate is about the murder of children. Either you believe that life begins at conception and it's murder to kill the baby, or you believe it's a clump of cells until such time as it's convenient to call it a baby so as to not have to face that it could be the murder of an infant. It's a true dichotomy and no part of it is about controlling a woman or removal of choice. You don't get to assert the terms of the debate. Your perspective is a crass, binary reductio ad absurdum because you lack the cognitive tools necessary to hold a more nuanced view. Like I said, too subtle for you. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jun 25, 2022 20:34:14 GMT
Actually no. The basic argument boils down to control. If they can't control it, they ain't happy about it. Except no part of it is about control. It IS. It is about whether you have the ability to control whether you provide what another life needs. If you're forced to do that, there is most definitely a loss of control of your own body. And before some jackass talks about responsibility prior to pregnancy, fuck off. There are many situations where the woman actually doesn't have the amount of control that she should have. And it's not just rape. Even a properly used condom breaks. Men remove them without telling women (IMO, that's pretty damned close to rape). Birth control fails. I would honestly be ok with limiting abortion after quickening to medical necessity, but ONLY if abortion, sex ed (including how to use contraceptives and about abortion), and contraceptives were easily available everywhere. If states are gonna continue with their bullshit requirements regarding abortions, that's simply a non-starter. Abortion is a health issue for women. For ANY health issue to be under the purview of states' rights is fucking ridiculous. |
|
