Can pro life defend their position

[jaeger19]

I'd say because it's illogical. The fact that he cannot even explain "value", which is the crux of his argument, demonstrates how weak his argument really is. It's based on nothing more than his feelings. Nothing rational or objective.

Well it seems to be a theme with the anti abortion folks here.

They want “exceptions” to the abortion ban supposedly.. but then won’t discuss how they should work and why they aren’t working in the real world.

After these laws , more abortions ,more maternal deaths, more infant death but no reaction, no discussion from the “ pro lifers”.

They value life supposedly but can’t explain that value.

 

[Lursa]

Well it seems to be a theme with the anti abortion folks here.

They want “exceptions” to the abortion ban supposedly.. but then won’t discuss how they should work and why they aren’t working in the real world.

After these laws , more abortions ,more maternal deaths, more infant death but no reaction, no discussion from the “ pro lifers”.

They value life supposedly but can’t explain that value.

Nor why it's acceptable to "murder baybees" under some conditions for "compromise."

 

[Gordy327]

Well it seems to be a theme with the anti abortion folks here.

They want “exceptions” to the abortion ban supposedly.. but then won’t discuss how they should work and why they aren’t working in the real world.

After these laws , more abortions ,more maternal deaths, more infant death but no reaction, no discussion from the “ pro lifers”.

They value life supposedly but can’t explain that value.

They also fail to see the hypocrisy with exceptions. Or how restrictions unduly infringe on a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Their position is based entirely on emotion or feeling and is logically and legally untenable. Abortion bans do no not work. They only end up harming women, because cruelty is the point. Interestingly enough, places with minimal or no abortion restrictions seem to have a lower rate of abortion. Take Canada as a real world example of that.

 

[jaeger19]

Nor why it's acceptable to "murder baybees" under some conditions for "compromise."

Well I think lursa that this thread has pretty much shown that the anti abortion stance is really “ no abortion regardless of the health of the mother etc”.
That’s why they support abortion bans with nebulous , ill defined exceptions such that providers will be threatened into not providing necessary care.

 

[Lursa]

Well I think lursa that this thread has pretty much shown that the anti abortion stance is really “ no abortion regardless of the health of the mother etc”.
That’s why they support abortion bans with nebulous , ill defined exceptions such that providers will be threatened into not providing necessary care.

And also, no reasoning beyond their self-indulgence in imagining, personifying, the unborn inside strangers into "innocent little baybees" in order to stoke their self-righteousness.

 

[choiceone]

its a living human life - of course its valuable

I can think of exceptionally few laws that do not protect innocent life. I can think of few religions that don't value human life. I can think of few people in general who don't value human life. Its literally part of humanity, valuing our lives and the lives of other

I can't believe that you don't value human life and I have to try and explain it to you ? Do you not value human life then?

Then what do you do if you ban abortion but the woman denied an abortion dies in pregnancy or childbirth of medically unforeseeable complications? This does happen occasionally. Are you willing to take responsibility for the death, because medicine doesn't. If you aren't, then you're saying the ban is justified. But what do you do if the woman was raped and this happens? Don't you think that woman's life was also innocent?

 

[choiceone]

so you're ok with hospitals denying prenatal care - its not a baby right? there is no reason for fetal surgeries - its not a living human right? Fetal protection laws ... ridiculous right? why have them ?

you probably think its so stupid for people to get excited about pregnancy and babies or for pregnant women to watch their foods, take vitamins, no smoking/drugs etc .... its not a living human baby in there, why do they care?

the US Constitution doesn't specifically mention a lot of things .... what if the Constitution was changed, would you change your mind/opinion ? If not, then don't use it as part of your pillars

You don't get it. When a woman is pregnant, she isn't legally required to go to a doctor at all or request any medical help. The only legal requirements of women who are pregnant and give birth are the following.

First, if she stays pregnant, continuing the pregnancy to term, she can't chance fetal alcohol syndrome by drinking alcohol or chance fetal drug addiction by taking illegal drugs regularly, as she could be held liable for permanent health damage to the child after it is born for doing either thing.

Second, after the child is born, she has to take it to a hospital within 24 hours or as soon as possible after that for it to be checked and a birth certificate issued.

That's it. Nothing has ever required a pregnant woman to seek medical care during pregnancy or even for the birth. There's not a single law that requires her to refrain from certain foods, take extra vitamins, or quit smoking. That's all voluntary.

The reason is that she has a right to life in accord with a religion that doesn't believe in medical science. After birth, if the child is sick and could die, there can be a requirement that the legal mother get medical care for the neonate.

 

[choiceone]

people ? we're talking unborn's who have no value, no rights that don't deserve anything from anybody

absolutely "withhold" if it saves a hospital money - there isn't any reason to "give" ... the unborn isn't valuable is it ? I mean .. unless you think it is ??


killing innocent human life is wrong

we don't kill because someone is poor, has a disability, is the wrong color of skin ... we don't kill them because they're in the way or because they keep someone from doing something ... I think you'll agree there are very few places on the planet that allows killing of innocent living humans

an unborn baby is an innocent living human - that's a 100% fact - and its barbaric and should be banned everywhere

Roe is dead - never thought I'd see that in my life. Now, we have to work on children/schools, get a new generation of kids to value human life so when they grow up and replace the people of the Roe generation, they'll do better and ban killing unborn life once and for all

ya'll have a great Christmas with your families and hopefully remember why tomorrow is what it is

Merry Christmas to you. Christmas is what it is because Mary was given the opportunity to become pregnant by God with a future child who would be a boy and whose destiny would be to save the world, and, after her question was answered to her satisfaction, she consented and therefore became pregnant and evensually gave birth. No one made her pregnant by sex or accident or force against her will. That's why Christmas is what it is.

FYI, Roe v Wade may be retired in US law, but it isn't dead because it's alive and kicking in the hearts, minds, and souls of many millions of Americans and people all over the world who consider it to accord with truth.

 

[quip]

why is minutes after birth a baby is so valuable and minutes before its not ? its LITERALLY the same living human being isn't it ?

In a similar vein: Why, minutes after ejaculation, the egg/sperm cocktail is no more than a collective, gooey mess yet, the instant conception ensues it magically transpires into a LITERAL baby?!

Does a gooey mess physically or morally represent a neonate?

Aren't histrionic theatrics a waste of time for all involved?

 

[hecatmoggie]

In a similar vein: Why, minutes after ejaculation, the egg/sperm cocktail is no more than a collective, gooey mess yet, the instant conception ensues it magically transpires into a LITERAL baby?!

Does a gooey mess physically or morally represent a neonate?

Aren't histrionic theatrics a waste of time for all involved?

its not magic, its biology

you're right, you and I both know 1 minute before birth its the same baby, 10 minutes, 2 days ..... etc etc. We can agree on that because its simply biology 101

we can disagree and discuss if sperm is a living human unborn if you'd like, we can discuss if a fertilized egg in a petri dish on the kitchen counter is a living human ... what we can agree on though is once a normal pregnancy begins, there is a living human mother and a living human unborn in the womb ...

 

[Gordy327]

its not magic, its biology

you're right, you and I both know 1 minute before birth its the same baby, 10 minutes, 2 days ..... etc etc. We can agree on that because its simply biology 101

we can disagree and discuss if sperm is a living human unborn if you'd like, we can discuss if a fertilized egg in a petri dish on the kitchen counter is a living human ... what we can agree on though is once a normal pregnancy begins, there is a living human mother and a living human unborn in the womb ...

What does biology have to with anything? Particularly with the legal, moral, ethical, or practical aspects surrounding abortion? Biology makes no judgment calls whatsoever regarding abortion.

 

[quip]

its not magic, its biology

you're right, you and I both know 1 minute before birth its the same baby, 10 minutes, 2 days ..... etc etc. We can agree on that because its simply biology 101

Nothing magical about it.
You and I both know that the instant after conception a mass of sperm and egg is just that ...a mass of sperm and egg. Nothing resembling a "baby" may be found.

we can disagree and discuss if sperm is a living human unborn if you'd like, we can discuss if a fertilized egg in a petri dish on the kitchen counter is a living human ... what we can agree on though is once a normal pregnancy begins, there is a living human mother and a living human unborn in the womb ...

Birth is the moment the fetus now leaves the womb and legal rights of personhood commence. If you want to assign an abstract value to the fetus one minute prior, that's all and well, though you'll still have to contend with the competing rights of the mother.

As such, you'll always lose as the mother's rights supercede the unborn's as implied by oft 'pro-life' exceptions of life endangerment, being raped and/or incest.
The mother is in the superlative moral position to choose abortion or not

 

[hecatmoggie]

What does biology have to with anything?

what? you don't think biology matters?

Particularly with the legal, moral, ethical, or practical aspects surrounding abortion? Biology makes no judgment calls whatsoever regarding abortion.

so a 1 day old baby .... biology has nothing to do with it being protected from being killed ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Nothing magical about it.
You and I both know that the instant after conception a mass of sperm and egg is just that ...a mass of sperm and egg. Nothing resembling a "baby" may be found.

has a pregnancy began ?

Birth is the moment the fetus now leaves the womb and legal rights of personhood commence. If you want to assign an abstract value to the fetus one minute prior, that's all and well, though you'll still have to contend with the competing rights of the mother.

so its about legal rights of personhood in your opinion ?

 

[quip]

has a pregnancy began ?

Are you only opposed to abortion at one minute prior to birth?

so its about legal rights of personhood in your opinion ?

Yep. Birth's the most rational, practical point of the gestation process to assign the full protections of personhood status.

 

[Gordy327]

so a 1 day old baby .... biology has nothing to do with it being protected from being killed ?

Nope, not at all. The law has it protected.

what? you don't think biology matters?

Why should it? What does biology say about the legal, ethical, moral, or practical aspects surrounding abortion?

has a pregnancy began ?

What difference does it make?

so its about legal rights of personhood in your opinion ?

That is what is recognized and applicable.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Are you only opposed to abortion at one minute prior to birth?

that wasn't the question I asked - can you not answer it ?

and no - I'm against abortion once a normal pregnancy begins - at that point, 100% without a doubt/nobody can argue - there is a living human unborn in the womb. 100% biological fact

Yep. Birth's the most rational, practical point of the gestation process to assign the full protections of personhood status.

you change your mind as the law changes, right ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Nope, not at all. The law has it protected.

so its all about the law ?

Why should it? What does biology say about the legal, ethical, moral, or practical aspects surrounding abortion?

What difference does it make?

That is what is recognized and applicable.

so if what is recognized and applicable changes - your views/beliefs will change too ? right ?

 

[quip]

that wasn't the question I asked - can you not answer it ?

and no - I'm against abortion once a normal pregnancy begins - at that point, 100% without a doubt/nobody can argue - there is a living human unborn in the womb. 100% biological fact

If that's the case then defend your argument where it biologically commences, at conception and answer the question I posed for you?

you change your mind as the law changes, right ?

No.

 

[Gordy327]

so its all about the law ?

The law is what is applicable. What does biology say about abortion and any related judgement calls on it? You keep (not surprisingly) avoiding answering that question. Why is that?

so if what is recognized and applicable changes - your views/beliefs will change too ? right ?

My beliefs are irrelevant. As is your 'what ifs.'

and no - I'm against abortion once a normal pregnancy begins - at that point, 100% without a doubt/nobody can argue - there is a living human unborn in the womb. 100% biological fact

No one is arguing if its human or not. And you still haven't explained what being human or biology has to do with anything.

 

[hecatmoggie]

If that's the case then defend your argument where it biologically commences, at conception and answer the question I posed for you?

I did answer you

No.

so don't say anything about law/legal anymore - it has no bearing whatsoever on how you view life - if it did, you'd go with whatever was legal/lawful

 

[hecatmoggie]

The law is what is applicable. What does biology say about abortion and any related judgement calls on it? You keep (not surprisingly) avoiding answering that question. Why is that?

My beliefs are irrelevant. As is your 'what ifs.'

No one is arguing if its human or not. And you still haven't explained what being human or biology has to do with anything.

so what's legal is what binds you, that's what I'm reading here

if the USA banned abortion tomorrow, because that is the new law/legal, you'd defend that too, right ?

see ... I don't think you would. I think what's legal/lawful you use only when it benefits or aligns with what you believe. Am I right ?

 

[Gordy327]

so what's legal is what binds you, that's what I'm reading here

if the USA banned abortion tomorrow, because that is the new law/legal, you'd defend that too, right ?

see ... I don't think you would. I think what's legal/lawful you use only when it benefits or aligns with what you believe. Am I right ?

Once again, I made no mention of my beliefs. How about you answer my question now, what does biology have to do with anything?

 

[Gordy327]

so don't say anything about law/legal anymore - it has no bearing whatsoever on how you view life - if it did, you'd go with whatever was legal/lawful

What bearing does biology have on abortion?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Once again, I made no mention of my beliefs. How about you answer my question now, what does biology have to do with anything?

you don't care about legal/lawful

I know it, you know it

so where is your beliefs/views rooted? feelings? religion ?