Even when I was an atheist, I was still pro-life.

[Old Trapper]

An attended pregnancy simply has better outcomes than otherwise.

Not denying the legal definition. However, it is still a natural outcome of the sexual act, and if not for birth control, etc., would be more prevalent.

 

[Old Trapper]

Contrary to your opinion, there's nothing "immoral" about a woman's choosing to have sex or choosing to have an abortion rather than a baby.

According to your "opinion". However, in any legitimate society murder is considered to be immoral, and in many sex outside of marriage is also considered to be immoral.

 

[vegas giants]

According to your "opinion". However, in any legitimate society murder is considered to be immoral, and in many sex outside of marriage is also considered to be immoral.

Name these countries that follow those values and are bastions of freedom

 

[Old Trapper]

Do I have to inform you that being pregnant is a medical condition? Do you think a uterus is not part of the female body?

Save for the umbilical cord there is no other attachment of the babe to the woman.

[/quote]All women can get medical complications during and after the pregnancy. A woman has a right to make medical decisions about her own body and future.
[/QUOTE]

And, according to your form of "logic", that decision cannot be made prior to having sex.

But tell me, if I am in the woods, and I have a chain saw, should I use that saw knowing that I will lose a limb if I do so?

 

[Old Trapper]

OK, I already know your comeback. If I make a mistake and get pregnant (now assume that I am a woman) - I mean, after dating for 5 months, he said he really, really, really loved me and just wanted to "do it" so we can move forward - and I really, really like him, so I did it - but then I find out in the morning he had just won a bet that he could "get" me within 6 months, and low and behold, my best efforts at contraception fail, can I not choose to cancel (abort) the pregnancy?

As I have said previously there are exceptions, ad this may well be one depending on how weak you are emotionally.

Point still remains that you created the "beast" you now wish to terminate. To you it is nothing more then a slight bend in your own pleasure for which you take no responsibility. The child is the one that must pay for your selfishness, and irresponsibility. And killing that child is your way of erasing the "problem" you created.

 

[vegas giants]

As I have said previously there are exceptions, ad this may well be one depending on how weak you are emotionally.

Point still remains that you created the "beast" you now wish to terminate. To you it is nothing more then a slight bend in your own pleasure for which you take no responsibility. The child is the one that must pay for your selfishness, and irresponsibility. And killing that child is your way of erasing the "problem" you created.

And it works quite well for that

 

[Old Trapper]

Name these countries that follow those values and are bastions of freedom

United States is only one. Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and any free country especially the ones that also claim to be Christian. Muslim countries also have the same morality as does China, and Japan.

The point you make about actually following those values is a valid one since we now have a pervert as President. However, that is a natural consequence of an immoral society.

 

[vegas giants]

United States is only one. Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and any free country especially the ones that also claim to be Christian. Muslim countries also have the same morality as does China, and Japan.

The point you make about actually following those values is a valid one since we now have a pervert as President. However, that is a natural consequence of an immoral society.

I claim those values are a small minority in those countries


You have no evidence to counter

 

[Old Trapper]

And it works quite well for that

Yes, if you are satisfied with being a lowlife with no consideration for life, and totally deprived of the feeling of being responsible for your actions.

 

[vegas giants]

Yes, if you are satisfied with being a lowlife with no consideration for life, and totally deprived of the feeling of being responsible for your actions.

And you hate women and want them to die in childbirth


Hey.....this is easy. Lol

 

[Old Trapper]

I claim those values are a small minority in those countries


You have no evidence to counter

Actually the "evidence" is in the WH, our government, and society as a whole. All you have to do is have the moral character, and values, to be able to see it. Unfortunately we live in a society where greed,, and selfishness, are at the forefront, and moral values have little influence.

 

[vegas giants]

Actually the "evidence" is in the WH, our government, and society as a whole. All you have to do is have the moral character, and values, to be able to see it. Unfortunately we live in a society where greed,, and selfishness, are at the forefront, and moral values have little influence.

That is my evidence. Abortion has been legal for almost 50 years and is not going anywhere


The people have spoken

 

[southwest88]

No one said it had to be exact, however, is not the babe in the womb deprived of these things [civic rights], and has no voice with which to dissent?

Slavery in the motherland [UK] was legal until the 1500's when Elizabeth the first made it illegal. A later Court case in the 1700's reaffirm this. And while abortions have always been legal in the US it still does not take away from the logical consequences of such an action when the child is considered to be nothing more then property of the mother. In fact, child labor laws had to be passed in this counrry to eliminate that attitude when it came to the work force.

babe in the womb - Under US law, it's not a baby, nor a child, not until it's born.

no voice - True, the fetus has no voice - nor rights - except for the woman carrying him or her. That's always been the compromise, as far as I know.

child labor laws had to be passed in this counrry to eliminate that attitude - Yah. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United_States#See_also

"Activism against child labor[edit]
"The National Child Labor Committee, an organization dedicated to the abolition of all child labor, was formed in 1904. By publishing information on the lives and working conditions of young workers, it helped to mobilize popular support for state-level child labor laws. These laws were often paired with compulsory education laws which were designed to keep children in school and out of the paid labor market until a specified age (usually 12, 14, or 16 years.)

...

"In response to these setbacks, Congress, on June 2, 1924, approved an amendment to the United States Constitution that would authorize Congress to regulate "labor of persons under eighteen years of age", and submitted it to the state legislatures for ratification.[7] Only five states ratified the amendment in the 1920s. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration supported it, and another 14 states signed on in 1933 (his first year in office); 28 states in all had given their approval by 1937. An additional 8 states were needed at the time to ratify the proposed amendment.[8]

"The common legal opinion on federal child labor regulation reversed in the 1930s. Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 regulating the employment of those under 16 or 18 years of age, and the Supreme Court upheld the law.[8] After this shift, the amendment has been described as "moot"[9] and effectively part of the Constitution.[10]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Regulation of child labor also had to do with minimum wage, limiting the normal workweek, coping with the Depression (removing children from labor), & raising education norms for children.

 

[Old Trapper]

babe in the womb - Under US law, it's not a baby, nor a child, not until it's born.

That is the law, not the science.

Regulation of child labor also had to do with minimum wage, limiting the normal workweek, coping with the Depression (removing children from labor), & raising education norms for children.

And if that regulation had not been passed?

 

[Old Trapper]

That is my evidence. Abortion has been legal for almost 50 years and is not going anywhere

And that makes it moral how?

The people have spoken

In 1973 the majority of the people opposed Roe v Wade. But that just shows what the loss of moral values can do.

 

[vegas giants]

And that makes it moral how?



In 1973 the majority of the people opposed Roe v Wade. But that just shows what the loss of moral values can do.

Your opinion on morality is noted and dismissed by most Americans.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Not when you kill the one that has no voice in the matter since you think he/she is nothing but a piece of property the woman has the right to discard as she wishes.

Where is the babies choice?

Where is it's choice about being born?

 

[southwest88]

Not denying the legal definition. However, it is still a natural outcome of the sexual act, and if not for birth control, etc., would be more prevalent.

Pregnancy? With all due delicacy, there are variations that will not result in pregnancy. Probably part of that etc. above. However, far be it from me ...

 

[Scrabaholic]

United States is only one. Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and any free country especially the ones that also claim to be Christian. Muslim countries also have the same morality as does China, and Japan.

The point you make about actually following those values is a valid one since we now have a pervert as President. However, that is a natural consequence of an immoral society.

Sex outside marriage is not immoral here in Canada. I can't speak for the other countries.

Murder is not the topic, since abortion is not murder.

 

[southwest88]

quote/

• #389

southwest88 said:
babe in the womb - Under US law, it's not a baby, nor a child, not until it's born.

Regulation of child labor also had to do with minimum wage, limiting the normal workweek, coping with the Depression (removing children from labor), & raising education norms for children.

end quote/

That is the law, not the science.

And if that regulation had not been passed?

Does science say that the fetus is a baby? I've never known scientists to indulge in baby talk, as it were. Please cite the usage for us, & stun me into the bargain. Besides, we're in the Political segment of DP, talking about Abortion. Of course it's about the law.

if that regulation - Then there would have been less pressure to mechanize US manufacturing as much as possible. Then the post-WWII boom for the US would have been cut short by lack of trained, educated workers. Then we probably wouldn't have suburbs (who could afford them?), nor the suburban land/plat/finance/construction/housing boom, nor the infrastructure to support all that (roads, schools, shopping, utilities, banking, S&L, insurance, cars, semis, gasoline stations, the strip mall-ification of the entire US), & on & on. We'd look a lot more like Europe does now, I expect.

 

[Peter King]

The woman gets a choice. The man should too.

How does it hurt anyone for the man to get a choice?

That is being responsible

You keep repeating the same nonsense, the only reason the woman has a choice is because she is master of her own body, she gets to make medical decisions about HER body. As soon as she decides that she is going to have the child the man is on the hook for it. Pure and simple because the child does not get a choice, so the man does not get a choice.

Your choice is a big middle finger to the child and that is not going to fly with me or with society.

 

[Peter King]

Save for the umbilical cord there is no other attachment of the babe to the woman.

All women can get medical complications during and after the pregnancy. A woman has a right to make medical decisions about her own body and future.
[/QUOTE]

And, according to your form of "logic", that decision cannot be made prior to having sex.

But tell me, if I am in the woods, and I have a chain saw, should I use that saw knowing that I will lose a limb if I do so?
[/QUOTE]

so it does not happen in her body? And a zygote is not a baby, it may be get there in due time but a zygote does not have any rights over the body of the mother.

And this does not have anything to do with what happens prior to pregnancy, nothing at all. And your chain saw comparison is just ludicrous.

 

[vegas giants]

You keep repeating the same nonsense, the only reason the woman has a choice is because she is master of her own body, she gets to make medical decisions about HER body. As soon as she decides that she is going to have the child the man is on the hook for it. Pure and simple because the child does not get a choice, so the man does not get a choice.

Your choice is a big middle finger to the child and that is not going to fly with me or with society.

But why? Why does she get to control his finances? If she wants the child fine....pay for it

If she has a child she can not afford and will not have a father in his life that is a big middle finger to the kid

 

[Lursa]

I understand abortion is a big decision and should be legal. However the argument that women are in charge of their bodies is not one of the better arguments and not one that you used here. I'm saying that in many cases women are irresponsible with their bodies, chose bad mates or lovers, and so on.

And yet you chose to make that argument Have you changed your mind then since you started this specific argument? Using birth control is very responsible. Accidental pregnancies still happen and then women have other options, all of which can be responsible based on their circumstances. And women are in charge of their bodies and their decisions. If they are not, you have failed to demonstrate how. I have demonstrated that they are.

And choosing 'bad mates' has nothing to do with the issue. It takes 2 to make a relationship and people cheat and abuse and lie in them all the time. It's a huge issue and has nothing to do with abortion. Not to mention that if a woman chooses to use birth control for a one night stand and it fails, she was responsible. Women have every right to enjoy sex just as men do.

There are many forms of birth control, and understand none of them are foolproof. However there seems to be more abortions than faulty birth control methods. If women are genuinely responsible for their bodies they should behave responsibly, or do what they can to see the baby to term, notwithstanding the reasons you listed above.

That's a rather ambiguous and unsupported statement. IMO you just want to avoid admitting your accusations that in your opinion, *most* women that choose abortion were/are irresponsible. But you have no idea. I have written it up previously tho:



Note the last line: 10's of thousands of accidental pregnancies every day.

Have you now reconsidered your position that many sexually active women are 'irresponsble with their bodies?' If not, why not? You certainly chose to ignore the fact that her decision saved taxpayers billions. That's responsible, isnt it? When bc fails? When you cant afford a kid? Or are you just saying women shouldnt have sex until married and they decide to have a kid?

 

[Peter King]

But why? Why does she get to control his finances? If she wants the child fine....pay for it

If she has a child she can not afford and will not have a father in his life that is a big middle finger to the kid

She does not get to control his finances, that again is utter nonsense. The child has 2 parents, both have to pay for that child. The mother usually does it financially and physically, the man also has to contribute.